Baso Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10490 of 2022 ====================================================== Baso Devi Wife of Suresh Choudhary, Resident of Village- Chak Dhora under the Gram-Panchyat Sumera, P.S. Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Commissioner, Magadh Range, Gaya.

3.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jehanabad. 4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad.

5.

The Block Supply Officer, Block - Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Arvind Ujjwal ( Sc 4 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 19-03-2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the following relief(s) "(i) The order dated 11-03-2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jehanabad, in Supply Allegation Case No. 03 of 2016 where under he has cancelled the License No. 96 / 07 at village-Chak Dhora under the Gram-Panchyat Sumera, Parkhand Makhdumpur, standing in the name of the petitioner who is public distribution system dealer.

(ii) The order dated 19-11-2018 passed by District Magistrate, Jehanabad, in Supply Appeal No. 09 of 2016 affirming the order dated 11-03-2016 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Jehanabad, in Supply Allegation Case No. 03 of 2016 whereby and where under he has cancelled the public distribution

2/5 system dealer License No. 96 / 07 at villageChak Dhora under the Gram-Panchyat Sumera, Parkhand Makhdumpur, DistrictJehanabad, standing in the name of the petitioner.

(iii) The order dated 20-12-2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya, in Supply Revision No. 167 of 2020 affirming the order dated 19-11-2018 passed by District Magistrate, Jehanabad, in Supply Appeal No. 09 of 2016, the order dated 1103-2016 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Jehanabad, in Supply Allegation Case No. 03 of 2016 cancelling the Public District System Dealer License No. 96 of 07 standing in the name of the petitioner.

(B) An appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s) commanding the respondents to restore the License No. 96 / 07 standing in the name of petitioner for his public distribution system shop at village- Chak Dhora under the Gram-Panchayat Sumera, Parkhand Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad.

(C) Any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is found entitled to for giving complete justice to him.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of the license. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of the proposal for cancelling her license is contrary to the provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 2016').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the

3/5 judgment of the full Bench passed in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases dated 26.09.2023 to buttress his contention that non-mentioning of the proposed action in the show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and thereafter take necessary action.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. This Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:

"19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:-

4/5 It is mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a license to mention that there is a proposal for cancellation of his license, failing which such notice cannot be treated to be a valid notice of giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee to state his case under order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order. "

8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.

9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, the present CWJC is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 20.12.2021, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.11.2018, as well as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad dated 11.03.2016 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and call for her explanation by giving him reasonable time.

10. On such show-cause notice being served, the

5/5 petitioner shall file her explanation within the stipulated time. On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

11. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J) Ayush/- U