Manzoor Alam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12194 of 2016 ====================================================== Manzoor Alam, son of Mir Hasan Hajam, Resident of village- Barari Jagdish, P.S.- Uchkagaon , District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 3.
The S.D.O., Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Harendra Prasad, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad- GP 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2023 The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of his license for PDS dealership issued vide Memo. No.958 dated 24.07.2003, passed by respondent No. 3, namely S.D.O., Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj and the order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure- 7), passed by respondent no. 2, namely the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Supply Appeal Case No.9/14, whereby the appeal preferred against the order of the SubDivisional Officer, Gopalganj cancelling his license for PDS dealership was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and the same has been pending for almost 7 years.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12194 of 2016(3) dt.20-03-2023 2/2 This Court finds that the appeal preferred against the cancellation of P.D.S. dealership license of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2015 and more than 7 years have passed by. In lieu thereof, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to examine the matter and, by efflux of time, the present writ petition has rendered infructuous and no relief of renewing/restoring of license can be granted to him after 7 years of cancellation of license. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be always eligible to apply again for the PDS dealership, if he so chooses.
As such, with the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous by efflux of time with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Suraj/- Item No. 52 U