Santosh Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.11547 of 2015 dt.14-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11547 of 2015 =========================================================== Santosh Kumar Ram S/o Ram Briksha Rai, resident of village- Bisanpur, P.S.- Saharghat, District- Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Benipatti (Madhubani).

4. The Block Supply Officer, Madhavpur (Madhubani). .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-08-2018 None appears of any of the parties when the matter is called.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter No. 91 dated 21.08.2014 issued from the office of Block Supply Officer, Madhavpur (respondent no. 4) who has submitted report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Benipatti, Madhubani (respondent no. 3) stating therein that Saharghat P.S. Case No. 55/13 has been registered against the petitioner under the provision of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and pursuant thereto license has been cancelled.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11547 of 2015 dt.14-08-2018

3. A perusal of the averments in the writ petition discloses that the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 21.08.2014 issued by the Block Supply Officer, Madhavpur (Annexure-7). It appears however that the said letter merely contains the fact that the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail and the matter was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for appropriate orders. Significantly, the petitioner himself has stated in paragraph-11 of the writ petition that the license was cancelled on 01.08.2014 by the SubDivisional Officer, Benipatti, Madhubani (respondent no. 3). Such cancellation order however has not been challenged nor there is any material to show that the same has been made the subject matter of appeal. The question of restoration of supplies to the petitioner therefore does not arise. The impugned letter dated 21.08.2014 merely brings certain facts to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer for appropriate orders and no cause for grievance has been shown against the same.

4. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 20.08.2018 Transmission Date N.A.