Patna High CourtCWJC/11825/2013allowed

Brajmohan Paswan @ Brijmohan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-28Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11825 of 2013 =========================================================== Brajmohan Paswan @ Brijmohan Paswan, son of Jageshwar Paswan, resident of Village Rewari, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Madhubani

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Licensing Authority, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani

4. The Block Development Officer, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the appellate authority in Supply Appeal Case No. 65 of 2011-12 affirming the order of cancellation dated 03.11.2011, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur.

3. It appears that in course of inspection of P.D.S. shop of the petitioner, a lot of complaints were received, on the basis of which show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply, which was found not satisfactory, leading to passing of the impugned order of cancellation.

4. The petitioner submits that as the enquiry report

Patna High Court CWJC No.11825 of 2013 dt.28-08-2015 2 / 2 contained a number of allegations, it would have been apt that the copy of the same should have been given to him.

5. In my view, the submission of the petitioner has substance. The non-supply of the enquiry report deprived the petitioner from filing an effective show-cause reply.

6. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted to the licensing authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur) to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

7. This application stands allowed.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U