← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/10026/2016allowed

Ramakant Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-01-12Mr. Justice Vikash Jain3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10026 of 2016 =========================================================== Ramakant Sah, Son of Late Atma Ram Sah, resident of village - Jatwalia, P.S. Dhaka, District - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector of the District of East Champaran, Motihari

2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sikrahana, Dhaka, District - East Champaran, Motihari

3. The District Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari

4. The Block Supply Officer, Sikrahana, Motihari .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The preset writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

" (i) To issue rule in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 12.09.2015 passed in Appeal Case No. 58 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Appeal filed against the order of S.D.O. by the petitioner has been rejected. (ii) To quash the order issued vide Memo No. 365 dated 30.12.2014 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrahaa whereby the P.D.S. license of the petitioner has been cancelled. (iii) To command the respondent-authorities not to interfere with P.D.S. license of the petitioner. (iv) To grant any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitled."

Patna High Court CWJC No.10026 of 2016 dt.12-01-2018 2/3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an insufficient opportunity of three days was granted for filing show cause and the impugned order has been passed as the petitioner was unable to file the show cause within the stipulated time. In fact, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the show cause notice had been served on the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Fulpati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, 2013(1) PLJR 718, wherein it has been observed as follows:

"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not know about the notice as she was ill during the period. Hence, she did not file show cause and in her absence the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order cancelling her licence. He also submits that in appeal petitioner had brought this issue as ground no. (B) in the memo of appeal but the Collector has not considered the same and has brushed aside the ground taken by the petitioner and held that the ground of illness taken by the petitioner appears to be 'Post Thought'. He submits that illness or no illness, only three days time was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was very short, and thereafter, he passed final orders within one week, without ensuring that notice was served on her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. From the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer also it does not appear that he has take care to ascertain service of notice was affected on the petitioner or not. The fact that after issue of notice on 16th of November, 2011 he

Patna High Court CWJC No.10026 of 2016 dt.12-01-2018 3/3 passed final orders on 22nd of November, 2011 without mentioning in his order that the notice had been served on the petitioner, shows that he acted in hot haste."

4. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure-3) and the appellate order dated 12.09.2015 (Annexure-4) are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrahana, Dhaka, East Champaran, Motihari (respondent no. 2) to take a fresh decision in the matter after grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

5. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 16.01.2018 Transmission Date N.A.