← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12387/2015dismissed

Suchit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-14Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.12387 of 2015 dt.14-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12387 of 2015 =========================================================== Suchit Kumar, son of Late Chandeshwar Singh, reident of village- Saidpur, P.S.- Khizansarai, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

4. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Neemchak Bathani at Khizansarai, District- Gaya.

5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gaya.

6. The District Supply Officer, Gaya.

7. The Block Development Officer, Neemchak Bathani at Khizansarai, DistrictGaya.

8. The Block Supply Officer, Neemchak Bathani at Khizansarai, District- Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. ANSHUMAN SINGH- GP24 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-08-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 798 dated 27.06.2015, issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Neemchak Bathani, Gaya whereby and whereunder the licence granted to the petitioner under the Public Distribution System has been cancelled; and for restoring the PDS licence of the petitioner.

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order of cancellation suffers from no infirmity and the same has been passed

Patna High Court CWJC No.12387 of 2015 dt.14-08-2018 after issuance of show cause notice and consideration of the petitioner's reply.

4. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the matter, considering that the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order. The petitioner has approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/Md. Ibrarul AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.08.2018 Transmission Date NA