Birodhi Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4040 of 2013 ====================================================== Birodhi Sah, Son of Late Ram Dhari Sah, Resident of Village : Bhadwar Police Station : Bagengola, District : Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Additional Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. Joint Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

5. The District Magistrate Cum Chairman, District Licensing Authority under Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001, District : Buxar

6. The District Supply Officer Cum Secretary, District Licensing Authority Under Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001, District : Buxar

7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumrao, District : Buxar

8. The Block Supply Officer, Brahmpur Block, District : Buxar

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhadwar, Block Brahmpur, Dist: Buxar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anujit Sinha, A.C. to PAAG-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order, bearing Memo No.255 dated 18.03.2008, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumrao, District-Buxar, by which the petitioner's Public Distribution System licence has been suspended in contravention of the Act and since the same has been done in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same warrants

Patna High Court CWJC No.4040 of 2013 (6) dt.01-11-2017 2/2 interference by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the suspension order, the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case and, therefore, there is no scope of any continuance of the said licence of the petitioner and the writ application thus deserves to be dismissed.

Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present writ application in view of the subsequent event which has taken place.

The writ application is, thus, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority for grant of fresh licence, which application shall be decided by the authority in the light of the present Control Order and in accordance with law.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U