Aniruddh Mandal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6511 of 2019 ====================================================== Aniruddh Mandal Son of Ram Kishun Mandal@ Kishun Mandal Resident of Village- Chhaya Nagar, Under Gram Panchayat- Giddha, Ward No. 2, BlockShnakarpur, Police Station- Singheshwar, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar and Ors through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi-Division, Saharsa. 3.

The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Madhepura. 4.

The District Marketing Officer, Madhepura.

5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura.

6.

The Block Development Officer, Shankarpur, District- Madhepura. 7.

The Block Supply Officer, Shankarpur, District- Madhepura. 8.

The Supply Inspector, Block- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shekhar Kumar Singh, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Arvind Ujjwal ( SC4 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 30-01-2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the following relief(s) " (i)For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order impugned dated 09.01.2019 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhepura (Respondent No.3), whereby and whereunder PDS Appeal No. 65/2018, filed by the petitioner has been rejected and affirming the Memo No. 458 dated 09.08.2018, issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Madhepura (Respondent No. 5), in which the licence of PDS dealer vide License

2/5 No. 99/2007 has been cancelled and execised the power under the provision of Bihar Trade Article (License & Unification) Order 1984 read with amended Rule 2011, in sub Rule 7(II), whereby and under cancel the licence of the petitioner.

(ii) For further prayer of the petitioner to quashed the impugned Memo No. 458 dated 09.08.2018, issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Madhepura in which the PDS License of the petitioner vide licence No.

99/2007 has been cancel.

(iii) For direction upon the respondent to immediately restore the PDS licence of the petitioner.

(iv) For further any other relief/ reliefs, order /orders, direction /directions, may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of the license. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 2016').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the full Bench passed in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases dated 26.09.2023 to buttress his contention that non-mentioning of the proposed action in the show-cause

3/5 notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and thereafter take necessary action.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 20017. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. This Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:

"19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:- It is mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a license to mention that there is a proposal for cancellation of his license, failing which such notice cannot be treated to be a valid

4/5 notice of giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee to state his case under order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order. "

8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same has to be held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.

9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, the present CWJC is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 09.01.2019 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 09.08.2018 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and call for his explanation by giving him reasonable time.

10. On such show-cause notice being served, the petitioner shall file his explanation within the stipulated time. On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the

5/5 explanation submitted by the petitioner.

11. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J) perwez U