Manmati Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15984 of 2013 =========================================================== Manmati Devi, wife of Ramjee Prasad, resident of Kako Kali Pokhar, P.S.- Pali, District - Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Jehanabad
2. The SDO, Jehanabad
3. The BSO, Kako, Jehanabad .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Ram Vinay Pd. Singh, A.C. to G.A.-12 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure 3), which has been passed by the S.D.O., Jehanabad, vide Memo No.549, through which the licence granted to the petitioner for carrying on business of PDS shop has been cancelled in terms of Clause 7(i) of the P.D.S. Control Order, 2001.
3. During the pendency of the present writ application, the original petitioner Ramjee Prasad expired and his wife, namely, Manmati Devi, has been substituted, vide order dated 02.09.2015. As such, the present application now proceeds in her name.
4. On the last occasion, i.e., 28.01.2017, the entire
Patna High Court CWJC No.15984 of 2013 dt.29-06-2017 2/2 records were directed to be produced before this Court to demonstrate as to whether the show cause notices, which were issued to the petitioner, had been received by the petitioner and whether the same contained the enquiry report.
5. I have perused the records. It appears that on several occasions, the original petitioner himself has received the show cause notices along with Annexure, which is stated to be the enquiry report of the S.D.O., Jehanabad.
6. In view of such facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
7. The writ application thus stands dismissed.
8. However, it will be open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy, in accordance with law.
(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.07.2017 Transmission Date NA