Patna High CourtCWJC/19855/2013dismissed

Bangali Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-11-26Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.19855 of 2013 (5) dt.26-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19855 of 2013 ====================================================== Bangali Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-11-2015 The petitioner, who is aged about 83 years as mentioned in paragraph 22 of the writ petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 14.5.1997 passed by the S.D.O., Barh which was affirmed in appeal and revision by the learned Collector and the Commissioner vide order dated 23.11.2006 and 31.12.2011 respectively.

It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court against the order of the Appellate Authority where after the matter was remitted to the Commissioner vide order dated 11.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5026 of 2007. The learned Commissioner, Patna Division (respondent No.3) vide order dated 31.12.2011 rejected the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner, Patna Division erred in observing that ten charges were proved against the petitioner whereas only five charges were

Patna High Court CWJC No.19855 of 2013 (5) dt.26-11-2015 proved against the petitioner.

It is true that the learned Commissioner, Patna Division erred in observing that ten charges were proved whereas only five charges were proved as per the licensing authority as well as Appellate Authority. However, at the same time I find that the Commissioner, Patna Division did not find any ground to differ with the view of the Appellate Authority.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 wherein it has been stated that Kerosene oil and sugar were distributed in lesser quantity and the Display Board was not maintained.

As all the three Courts found that the charges are proved, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. This writ application is dismissed.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) KHAN/- U