Kaushlendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5012 of 2016 =========================================================== Kaushlendra Kumar, son of Late Suraj Prasad Singh, resident of Village - Bidhipur, P.S. - Salimpur, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Patna.

2. The S.D.O. Barh, Patna.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Umesh Kr. Roy, AC to GP 11 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by S.D.O., Barh, fully contained in memo no. 80 whereby and whereunder the PDS licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission to assail the impugned order on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and he was never confronted with the same with an opportunity of being heard or adducing evidence in that regard. A specific stand has been taken in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the impugned order of cancellation of licence has been passed without providing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, though the same had been relied upon in the impugned order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5012 of 2016 dt.06-02-2018 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. The stand of the petitioner with regard to non-supply of enquiry report has not been controverted in the counter affidavit.

5. In the above view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner has resulted in violation of natural justice and thus the decision making process stands vitiated. The impugned order contained in memo no. 80 dated 15.02.2016 passed by S.D.O., Barh, is hereby quashed and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh for taking decision afresh in the matter after supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the respondent no. 2.

6. It is made clear that in case the stand of the petitioner denying receipt of the enquiry report prior to order of cancellation being passed is found to be incorrect, the respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court for recall of this judgment.

7. The writ petition stands allowed as above. B.T/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 13.02.2018 Transmission Date N.A.