Prashant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5255 of 2025 ====================================================== Prashant Kumar, S/o Kameshwar Prasad Singh, B2B- Alakhraj Apartment Boring Canal Road, Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, P.S.- Budha Colony Patna, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar at Patna. 2.

The Secretary, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department (Registration), Patna.

3.

The Inspector General of Registration, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department (Registration), Patna.

4.

Joint Secretary, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department (Registration), Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anshul, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sourav Suman, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-04-2025 Heard Mr. Anshul, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurav Suman, learned Advocate for the petitioner. The State is represented through Mr. Ramadhar Singh, Government Pleader No. 25.

2. While assailing the impugned letter no. 4981 dated 02.12.2024 issued by the Joint Secretary, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department (Excise), Patna seeking explanation under rule 18(3) of the Bihar CCA, Rules, 2005, learned Senior Advocate has taken this Court through Rule 18(3) of the Bihar CCA, Rules, 2005 and submitted at the Bar that there is no finding of the disciplinary authority and for this reason alone the second show cause notice as contained in letter no. 4981 dated 02.12.2024 is wholly bad in law and unsustainable. However, he

Patna High Court CWJC No.5255 of 2025(2) dt.03-04-2025 2/2 fairly submitted that in response to the second show cause affidavit, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation, raising all the points including the infirmities in the second show cause notice, however, the apprehension of the learned Senior Advocate is that his contention shall not be addressed by the disciplinary authority.

3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted that since the petitioner has already submitted his jurisdiction before the disciplinary authority by filing explanation, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

4. Considering the submissions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider the second show cause reply of the petitioner and the contention raised before this Court in the present writ petition and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

5. The writ petition stands disposed off.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U