← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/18900/2013disposed

Ram Lochan Poddar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-18Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18900 of 2013 ====================================================== Ram Lochan Poddar, Son of Late Gena Poddar, Resident of Village - Saonkhar, P.S. - Bithan, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector of the District Samastipur

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rosera

3. District Supply Officer, Samastipur

4. The Block Supply Officer, Bethan (Samastipur) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivekanand Singh AC to GA-8 ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-08-2015 The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rosera whereby his license has been cancelled.

2. Learned counsel submits that his license has been cancelled on 05.07.2012 primarily on the ground that a case under 7 of the EC Act has been instituted for black-marketing. Earlier under the 2007 Control Order, the license could be suspended pending criminal case. However, the said provision has been deleted on 23.06.2011. Nonetheless, as per Clause 14 of the Control Order, the license can be cancelled if one is convicted in a criminal case. The petitioner has rightly relied upon a decision in case of Dharamdew Chaudhary Vs. The State of Bihar & Others,

Patna High Court CWJC No.18900 of 2013 (2) dt.18-08-2015 2 / 2 reported in 2015(2) PLJR 246

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted in the criminal case and also remained in custody for three months. He submits that he has an alternative remedy of appeal.

5. I find that the order of licensing authority is without jurisdiction in so much so that license cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. However, it will be open for the licensing authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

7. This application stands disposed of.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U