← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/851/2021allowed

Chhutharu Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary,

2021-11-02Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.851 of 2021 ====================================================== Chhutharu Prasad Yadav son of Late Kunai Yadav resident of village - Mojaha Sujanpur, Police Station- Kishanpur, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Supaul.

3.

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Supaul.

4.

The District Supply Officer, Supaul.

5.

The Block Supply Officer, Block- Kishanpur, District- Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate.

Mr.Anamul Haque, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 02-11-2021 Heard.

The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul, whereby and where under the P.D.S. license of the shop of the petitioner bearing License No. 298/2007 has been cancelled.

The Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.K. Agrawal, submits that along with the show cause notice dated 11.05.2020, the statements of the beneficiaries were annexed to level an allegation against the petitioner regarding irregularities in supply of food grains etc. to the beneficiaries, however, in the

2/4 show cause reply dated 18.05.2020, the petitioner has mentioned that all the beneficiaries, who had made allegations against the petitioner, do not any longer have any grievance and to that effect the petitioner had also annexed their statement on oath to show that none of the said beneficiaries are having any complaint against the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul was at least required to verify the claim of the petitioner regarding none of the beneficiaries having any complaint and he ought to have made a fresh enquiry, but the same was not done, resulting in great prejudice to the petitioner and vitiating the impugned order dated 10.06.2020. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order dated 29.04.2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No.

3/4 the licensee are not genuine.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent State, Shri Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4 has not disputed the position as is existing law.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that though the petitioner had furnished the statement on oath of all those beneficiaries who are stated to be the complainants, which had led to issuance of a show cause notice dated 11.5.2020, in favour of the petitioner, the SubDivisional Officer, Supaul, has failed to verify the same and instead has passed the impugned order dated 10.06.2020 whereby and where under the license of the petitioner has been cancelled, resulting in great prejudice to the petitioner in as much as the complaints/ statements of the beneficiaries, being relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul, who has passed the impugned order dated 10.06.2020, are no longer efficacious in view of the statement of the same complainants/ beneficiaries having been submitted by the licensee i.e.

4/4 found the aforesaid affidavits/ statements of the complainants/ beneficiaries, submitted by the petitioner, to be not genuine. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.06.2020 stands vitiated in the eyes of law, hence is quashed. However, the matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul to verify the genuineness of the statement of the beneficiaries submitted by the petitioner, who are also alleged to be the complainants and then proceed afresh in accordance with law. It is needless to state that before passing any adverse order against the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Tiwary/- U