Md. Kafil Ahmad @ Md. Kafil v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10431 of 2017 =========================================================== Md. Kafil Ahmad @ Md. Kafil son of Late Abas Ahmad, Resident of VillageMadhuban Got, Madhuban Basaha East, Block + P.S.- Bajpatti, DistrictSitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The District Officer-cum- 2nd Appellate Tribunal, Sitamarhi.

3. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Pupri, District- Sitamarhi.

4. The District Supply Officer, Sitamarhi.

5. The Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Bajpatti, DistrictSitamarhi. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. SANJAY KR.GIRI-GP9 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by SDO, Pupri, District Sitamarhi fully contained in Memo No. 165/Supply whereby and whereunder the PDS licence bearing Licence No. 26/1992 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 show cause and the impugned order has been passed as the petitioner was unable to

file the show cause within the stipulated time. In fact, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the show cause notice had been served on the petitioner. 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 11.05.2017 (Annexure-1) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pupri, District Sitamarhi (respondent no. 3) to take a fresh decision in the matter after grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

5. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.04.2018 Transmission Date NA