Smt. Jaymanti Devi, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7829 of 2020 ====================================================== Smt. Jaymanti Devi, aged about 44 years, female, wife of Sri Umesh Das, Resident of Village and P.O. - Chiraiya, P.S. - Amarpur, District - Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

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

The Licencing Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka DistrictBanka. 4.

The Assistant District Supply Officer, Banka, District-Banka. 5.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhola Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Alok Ranjan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-10-2020 Heard Mr. Bhola Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned Advocate for the State.

2. This is an application seeking quashing of the order dated 18.06.2020 passed by the learned SubDivisional Officer, Banka, whereby the licence of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7829 of 2020 dt.05-10-2020 2/3 petitioner has been cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grounds which were taken in his showcause explanation has not at all been adverted to and a decision has been taken on the premise that no evidence was put forth in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that all evidences were given and the four persons who had complained against the petitioner that they were not provided with the foodgrains, are not the card-holders. This aspect has not been taken into account by the licensing authority.

4. However, from the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the reasons, even though erroneous, have been given by the licensing authority for cancelling the licence of the petitioner.

5. In that view of the matter, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order as the petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the order passed by the licensing authority.

6. Should such an appeal be preferred by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7829 of 2020 dt.05-10-2020 3/3 petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and heard in proper perspective and a reasoned order shall be passed within a period of eights weeks of the receipt of such memo of appeal.

7. The order, so passed by the appellate authority, shall be immediately communicated to the petitioner.

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 08.10.2020 Transmission Date N/A