Ganesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10075 of 2021 ====================================================== Ganesh Kumar, Son of Late Kamleshwari Thakur, Resident of MohallaHajipur (Khagaria) Ward No. -17, Khagaria Municipal Council, P.S. and District- Khagaria, 851204, Presently P.D.S. Dealer, Ward No.-17, Khagaria Municipal Council, P.O. and P.S. and District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar.

2.

The Divisional Commissioner Munger Division, Munger. 3.

The Collector Khagaria.

4.

Sub- Divisional Officer Khagaria.

5.

The Block Supply Officer Khagaria, District- Khagaria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S. Rajz, Ahmad, AAG-5 Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 03-01-2022 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s :-

2/4 After the matter was heard for some time, Shri S. Raza Ahmad, learned Additional Advocate General No. 5 fairly states that the full text of Section 28 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016 was not brought to the notice of the Court, which led to the passing of an order dated 01.12.2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 4332 of 2021, titled as Doctor Yadav Vs. The State of Bhar and Ors.

Had the full text been brought to the notice of the Court, we are sure that the Court would have taken a different view, for as we notice, the provisions are unambiguously clear and the time frame stipulated in Rule 28 of the Order itself stipulates a further condition being adhered to "as far as possible".

In this view of the matter, reliance on the said decision is totally misconceived in law for the decision being per incurium.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that petitioner shall be content if the petition is

3/4 disposed of with direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's case, which is pending consideration, on expeditious basis.

Shri S. Raza Ahmad, learned Additional Advocate General No. 5 states that State has no objection to the same. As such, petition stands disposed of in the following terms:- (a) The authority concerned shall consider and decide the case of confiscation/proceedings expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of placing on record copy of the order;

(b) Needless to add, while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;

(c). Petitioner shall appear before the authority concerned on 17th of January, 2022 along with a copy of this order;

(d) Petitioner undertakes to fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournment;

(e) Equally, liberty is reserved to the

4/4 petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law; (f) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;

(g) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the need so rises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action;

(h) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open;

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Ashwini/PKP AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 05.01.2022 Transmission Date