Ram Kishun Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.21657 of 2014 dt.18-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21657 of 2014 =========================================================== Ram Kishun Thakur S/o Late Harshit Thakur Resident of Village Nimi, P.S. Shekhopursarai, District Sheikhpura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sheikhpura.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Sheikhopurrsarai, District Sheikhpura.

6. The Rural Development Officer, Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura.

7. The Special Executive Officer, Gopniya Shakha Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura.

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

For the Petitioner/s None For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG8- GAUTAM BOSE =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-08-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.09.2014 passed in Supply Appeal Case No. 13/2014 by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sheikhpura (Respondent No. 3) as well as the order dated 17.05.2014 cancelling the petitioner's PDS licence No. 35/85 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura (Respondent No. 4); and for connected reliefs.

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls. Learned counsel for the respondent appears.

3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer in the writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.21657 of 2014 dt.18-08-2018 petition, this Court finds that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing the statutory remedy by way of revision against the appellate order before the Divisional Commissioner.

4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision before the Divisional Commissioner, against the impugned appellate order, if so advised.

5. It is made clear that in case such a revision is filed, the concerned authority would have regard to the present proceeding being pursued by the petitioner while considering any issue relating to condonation of delay, if applicable.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/Md. Ibrarul AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.08.2018 Transmission Date NA