Upendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8334 of 2018 =========================================================== Upendra Paswan, S/o Triloki Paswan, resident of Village- Maheshadih, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supply Department, Patna.

2. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Banka.

3. The Block Supply Officer, Bahusi, Banka.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. RAZA AHMAD- AAG5 Mr. Anisul Haque AC to AAG 5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 15-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by SDO, Banka fully contained in Memo No. 106 whereby and whereunder the PDS licence bearing Licence No. 58 of 2012 granted to the petitioner for running a PDS shop has been cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an insufficient opportunity of three days was granted for filing reply to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2017, and the petitioner was unable to file the show cause within the stipulated time due to illness of her daughter. The Licencing authority issued second show cause dated 24.12.2018

directing the petitioner to submit his show cause reply within three days. It is submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Fulpati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, 2013(1) PLJR 718, wherein it has been observed as follows____ "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not know about the notice as she was ill during the period. Hence, she did not file show cause and in her absence the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order cancelling her licence. He also submits that in appeal petitioner had brought this issue as ground no. (B) in the memo of appeal but the Collector has not considered the same and has brushed aside the ground taken by the petitioner and held that the ground of illness taken by the petitioner appears to be 'Post Thought'. He submits that illness or no illness, only three days time was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was very short, and thereafter, he passed final orders within one week, without ensuring that notice was served on her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. From the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer also it does not appear that he has take care to ascertain service of notice was affected on the petitioner or not. The fact that after issue of notice on 16th of November, 2011 he passed final orders on 22nd of November, 2011 without mentioning in his order that the notice had been served on the petitioner, shows that he acted in hot haste."

4. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure-6) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka (respondent no. 2) to take a fresh decision in the matter after grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner in accordance with law. Supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the Respondent no. 2.

5. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.05.2018 Transmission Date NA