Munilal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 2337 of 2021 ====================================================== Munilal Yadav Sono f Chhangali Yadav Resident of Vilalge-Jamalpur, Police Station-Shahkund, District-Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Distirt Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

3.

The S.D.O. Sadar, Bhagalpur.

4.

The District Supply Officer, Bhagalpur.

5.

The District Manager, State Food Nigam Bhagalpur. 6.

The Block Supply Officer, Shahkund, Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Md Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr S Raza Ahmad, AAG V ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 18-01-2022 This case has been taken up for online hearing through video-conference because of COVID 19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

The petitioner's licence to run a fair price shop under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 was cancelled by an order dated 01.10.2018 against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal giving rise to Appeal Case No 320 of 2018-19 which has been dismissed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by an order dated 22.08.2020.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2337 of 2021(2) dt.18-01-2022 2/2 The petitioner has put to challenge the said orders passed on 01.10.2018 and 22.08.2020 in the present writ application. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of preferring revision application before the appropriate authority.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision application against the impugned orders. If any revision application is filed within four weeks from today with an application seeking condonation of delay, if any, the same shall be considered liberally keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court by filing present writ application and decide the petitioner's revision application expeditiously on merit, preferably within a period of three months from the date of its filing.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U