Munilal Ram @Muni Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9049 of 2021 ====================================================== MUNILAL RAM @MUNI RAM Son of Khelawan Ram, resident of Village - Paravaha, Panchayat - Baburwan, Block Parihar, P.S.- Parihar, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi. 3.

The District Supply Officer, Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi. 4.

The Sub Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Sitamarhi Sadar, District - Sitamarhi.

5.

The Block Development Officer-cum-Block Supply Officer, Block - Parihar, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore ( Ag ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA) 24-12-2021 The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi whereby and whereunder the license of the PDS shop of the petitioner has been cancelled.

The short issue raised by the petitioner for consideration is that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 would show that the show cause reply of the petitioner has been rejected in one line by simply terming it to be unsatisfactory, without furnishing any cogent, clear or succinct reasons for coming to a conclusion

Patna High Court CWJC No.9049 of 2021(2) dt.24-12-2021 2/2 warranting cancellation of the license of the petitioner and moreover, the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 does not depict any application of mind by the licensing authority, thus, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 stands vitiated in the eyes of law. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State has not disputed the position, as is existing in law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the impugned order dated 19.02.

2020 does not show any application of mind on the part of the SubDivisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi as also no clear, succinct or cogent reasons have been furnished by the licensing authority so as to come to a finding warranting cancellation of the license of the petitioner, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 stands vitiated in the eyes of law, hence, is quashed. However, the matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi, to proceed afresh, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Rajan Gupta, J) ( Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/TiwaryU