Sunil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.8262 of 2015 dt.06-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8262 of 2015 =========================================================== Sunil Kumar Singh son of Late Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of village Chainpur, P.S.- Garaul, District- Vaishali (An Ex- P.D.S. dealer of Panchayat Lodipur, Prakhand Goraul) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, old Secretariat Patna-1.

2. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahua.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narayan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, GP-16. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-08-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs - "(A) For quashing the order dated 11.09.2012 vide Annexure-3 passed by the S.D.O. Mahua respondent no. 3, cancelling illegally the licence no. 24/07 of the petitioner without giving him adequate opportunity, e.g. without giving copy of inquiry report dated 08.09.2012, copy of complaint petition if any the copy of statements of 5 consumers taken in support of vague allegations to file an effective reply against the allegations, without application of mind and without initiating any cancellation proceeding to that effect but alleging that irregularities in distribution of food grains and K. Oil among consumers are being committed by the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8262 of 2015 dt.06-08-2018 (B) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to restore the licence of the petitioner to its original position and allow him to run the shop as usual.

(C) For issuance of any other order/orders, direction/directions for which this petitioner is entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Aditya Narayan submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and as such the writ petition need not be pressed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and he has no objection in this regard.

4. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 07.08.2018 Transmission Date N.A.