Ramnath Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10796 of 2023 ====================================================== Ramnath Singh, S/o Late Ganga Ram Singh, Resident of Village-Bishun Tola, Jalalpur, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Saran at Chapra.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer Sadar, Chapra.
4. The Block Supply Officer, Sadar, Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 09-10-2023 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2020 passed in Memo No.1334 dated 02.03.2020 by which the PDS license of the petitioner being License No.18 of 2016 has been cancelled by the Learned SubDivisional Officer, Sadar Saran at Chapra cum Licensing Authority and further for quashing the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Supply Appeal No.05 of 2022 by which the learned Collector, Saran at Chapra has dismissed the appeal and further be pleased to restore the licensing and supply of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the authority concerned have not enclosed the copy of the enquiry report along with the show-cause notice and there is no proposal in the show-cause notice for cancellation of the license
2/6 of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 2016')
5. Further learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 wherein this Hon'ble Court has held that the nonsupply of the enquiry report along with the show-cause is bad and against the principle of natural justice and equity.
6. Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner has taken the above ground in the appeal, but the appellate authority has not dealt with the above ground and dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Full Court passed in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases dated 26.09.2023, to buttress his contention that non-mentioning of the proposed action in the show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.
8. Learned counsel has stated that in view of the
3/6 above mentioned provisions of law and judgments relied by the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with the show-cause notice and thereafter take necessary action.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Commissioner. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
10. This Court in CWJC No.253 of 2014 dated 11.03.2015 held as under:
"In my opinion, irregularities in maintenance of notice board or maintenance of the stocks within the premises of the petitioner are too trivial and cannot form a basis for cancellation of licence. No doubt there were other serious charges against the petitioner regarding non-issuance of cash-memo to the consumers, distribution of lesser amount of kerosene oil and non-distribution of foodgrains but surprisingly even while making such allegations, the names of such consumers who are dissatisfied by such action of the petitioner are conspicuously missing. The allegations are sweeping in
4/6 nature without reference to any specific consumer.
In my opinion the non-supply of the enquiry report conducted by the District Level Committee which is the foundation for issuance of show cause notice placed at Annexure-1 as well as non-supply of names of such of the consumers who had complained against the petitioner as regarding the irregularities in distribution of the food-grains or the kerosene oil has prejudiced the petitioner to file his purposeful reply and in absence thereof, the order impugned in my opinion, are based on no materials.
Though it was strenuously argued by Mr. Pandey that in absence of any response by the petitioner the allegations would be deemed to have been admitted but in my opinion even if the show cause reply was missing, the orders passed by the statutory authorities having civil consequences and resulting in cancellation should reflect application of mind.
Unfortunately it is grossly missing inasmuch as neither the order of the Licensing Authority nor the order of the appellate authority deal with the materials which formed the basis to drive home the charges.
The orders impugned are indefensible and cannot be upheld."
11. Further, this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:
"19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:- It is mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a
5/6 license to mention that there is a proposal for cancellation of his license, failing which such notice cannot be treated to be a valid notice of giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee to state his case under order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order."
12. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal that the enquiry report was enclosed along with the show-cause notice and that there was any proposal for taking any action against the petitioner.
13. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, the present CWJC is allowed. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and also furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.
14. On such show-cause notice being served, the petitioner shall file his explanation to the said show-cause notice within a period of 15 days thereof, and on receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the authority concerned
6/6 shall pass order strictly in accordance with law.
15. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.
16. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J) Prakash Narayan U