Naresh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17432 of 2014 =========================================================== Naresh Prasad S/o Late Deosharan Yadav Resident of Village Bhadwa, P.S. Rahui, District Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Principal Secretary, Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. District Magistrate cum Collector, Nalanda.

4. Subdivisional Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda.

5. District Supply Officer, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC12- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-07-2018 Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order of cancellation of his PDS licence on the ground that the show cause notice did not indicate the proposed cancellation of the licence which is a mandatory requirement in terms of Clause 7(ii) of the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007. Reliance is placed on Prasuani Khirodhar Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2015(3) PLJR 189.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that non-indication about proposed cancellation in the impugned order has resulted in violation of natural justice and thus the decision making process stands vitiated.

4. This Court is also of the view that the bar of alterative remedy would not disentitle the petitioner for relief in a case of the present nature where the impugned order is founded upon a show cause notice which is not sustainable in law. Clause 7(ii) of the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 clearly mandates that no order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity for stating its case against the proposed cancellation.

5. A perusal of the show cause notice in memo no. 299 dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure-1) discloses that the proposed cancellation of the license was not made known to the petitioner and thus the requirement of Clause 7(ii) aforesaid cannot be said to have been fulfilled. Accordingly, the show cause cannot be treated as a notice under Clause 7(ii), as also observed in Prasuani's case (supra).

6. The impugned order dated 27.01.2014 (Anenxure-4) and the appellate order dated 26.07.2014 (Annexure-5) are hereby quashed and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biharsharif for taking decision afresh in the matter after serving a

proper show cause to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Licence of the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the Respondent no. 4.

7. The writ petition stands allowed as above. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 31.07.2018 Transmission Date NA