Rajendra Das v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10285 of 2015 =========================================================== Rajendra Das Son of Late Rameshwar Das Resident of village - Khirjan, Post - Laskari, P.S. Rajaun, District - Banka .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Banka, District - Banka

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka, District - Banka

4. The Block Supply officer, Rajaun, District - Banka .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, AC to AAG 3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-11-2016 Heard parties.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29.5.2015, as contained in Annexure 1, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer - cum - licensing authority, Banka by which his PDS licence has been cancelled.

The sole ground taken by the petitioner in the writ application is that the order impugned shows non application of mind by the authority and there is no discussion on the grounds raised by the petitioner in his reply filed after issuance of show cause notice. Same is merely based upon a first information report which has been lodged under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10285 of 2015 dt.17-11-2016 2/2 I find force in the submission made on behalf of petitioner that there does not appear to be any application of mind by the licensing authority upon the grounds raised in the petition of reply. Merely one sentence has been devoted that his reply is not found to be satisfactory. In my considered opinion that would not be sufficient as reasons would have to be assigned by the authority as to why the grounds raised by the licensee has not been found tenable. Thus, it has to be held that the order impugned suffers from vice of arbitrariness and, as such, is not sustainable in eye of law. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the order impugned is quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the Licensing Authority for taking fresh decision in accordance with law after consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.11.2016 Transmission Date NA