Sanjay Khan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22512 of 2014 ====================================================== Sanjay Khan. Son of Gulam Rasool Khan. resident of village - Pandari, P.S.- Dobhi, District - Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.

4. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Sherghati, District - Gaya.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, District - Gaya.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Dobhi, District - Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC -19 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, AC to SC 19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.09.2014 passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya (respondent no. 5) in Supply Case No. 12 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the said authority has cancelled the license of the petitioner granted to him under the Public Distribution System.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority has not followed the practice and procedure envisaged under the Essential Commodities Act for cancellation

of the licence granted to the petitioner inasmuch as though the notice has been served on him and an enquiry was conducted, no enquiry report was ever furnished so as to enable the petitioner to answer the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 16 Patna 148 in which this Court has taken the categorical view that under the Essential Commodities Act, the PDS license cannot be cancelled without supplying enquiry report to the licensee and without giving liberty to him to explain his case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to file his show cause after a copy of the enquiry report is furnished to him and after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the authority may then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the present application is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is a statutory provision of appeal which has not been availed by the petitioner and the petitioner has chosen to come directly to this Court. It is, thus, contended that on this ground alone, the petitioner's writ is fit to be dismissed.

This Court after noticing the clear discrepancy in the action of the respondents inasmuch as the Enquiry Report

has not been furnished on the petitioner which is also not denied by the respondent is of the considered opinion that the impugned action is not sustainable.

In view of the present facts and circumstances as stated in the writ application and also for the reasons stated above, while setting aside the order dated 25.09.2014 in Supply Case No. 12 of 2014, the matter is remitted back to the SubDivisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya for taking a fresh decision in the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file show cause.

It is made clear that the Licensing Authority shall make available to the petitioner copy of the enquiry report within a period of four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall then file his reply to the enquiry report received by him and the authority shall then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months, thereafter.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U