Bishan Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13640 of 2024 ====================================================== Bishan Das, Male, aged about 57 years, Son of Chulhay Das, Resident of Village- Daradhi, P.O. Horndhipur, P.S.- Shahkund, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 3.
The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bhagalpur. 4.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur. 5.
The District Supply Officer, Bhagalpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur. 6.
The Block Development Officer, Block- Shahkund, District- Bhagalpur. 7.
The Block Supply Officer, Block- Shahkund, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Chandrasekhar Sharma For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Standing Counsel 1 with Mr. Md. Irshad, AC to SC-1.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the following reliefs:- ".............for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, Respondent No.
2 in Supply Revision case no. 16/2023-24 by which confirmed the order of Collector, Bhagalpur and closed the case. And further pleased to quash the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Collector-cumD.M, Bhagalpur passed in Supply Appeal No. 191/2017-18 by which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of SDO,
2/6 Bhagalpur as contained in Memo No. 722 dated 03.10.2017 and be further pleased to quash the order of SDO, Bhagalpur contained in Memo No. 722 dated 03.10.2017 by which he cancelled the petitioner's PDS License No. 44/2016.
(ii) For holding and declaration that petitioner deserves to get restore his PDS Licence No. 44/2016 which has been cancelled by the SDO, Bhagalpur, as well as by the Appellate Authority, D.M., Bhagalpur and confirmed by the Revisional Authority, Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Collector-cum-D.M., Bhagalpur and the order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhagalpur are liable to be set aside as the same is against the principles of natural justice and equity. Learned counsel has stated that though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice, the SubDivisional Officer has not considered the said explanation and passed the orders in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel has stated that none of the consumers were examined and the said fact has not been considered by the authority concerned. That the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been adverted to by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his order. Learned
3/6 counsel has, therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the SubDivisional Officer for passing orders afresh duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also examine the complainants.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel has stated that the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer are well reasoned order and does not require any interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
5. A perusal of the order passed by the authority especially the Sub-Divisional Officer shows that the SubDivisional Officer while passing the orders has not adverted to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has given a detailed explanation to the show cause notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not discussed the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed the orders in a mechanical manner. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that none of the alleged complainants were examined. This Court in a catena of cases, has held that any
4/6 order that is passed has to contain the reasons for passing the said orders. Unless and until the reasons are given in the impugned order the superior authority or the Court will not be in a position to appreciate the order passed and the reason for the order being passed. In absence of any reasons in the order, it would be very difficult to either sustain or set aside the said order. Any order which is not speaking order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same has to be necessarily set aside.
6. This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of occasions. have held that any authority Court/quasi judicial authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order passed by them. Unless reasoning is given in the order, neither the party nor Courts before whom the order is challenged will be in a position to appreciate as to what has weighed with the said authority either for dismissing or allowing the application of the petitioner. Though the quasi judicial or administrative authority are not obligated to give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial order, yet they are expected to give a reasoned order which should be precise, concisely setting out the reason for allowing or dismissing the contention/application/case.
5/6
7. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC, 785, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
".................. while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly: a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order........" "........
A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer Reasons are the soul of orders Nonrecording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities: Firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."
8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Collector-cum-D.M., Bhagalpur and the order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional
6/6 Officer, Bhagalpur are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing orders afresh. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall pass a reasoned order duly taking into account the various contentions raised by the petitioner in his explanation. In case, the authorities are relying on the statements given by the consumers, the petitioner shall be permitted to examine them.
9. It is needless to mention that before passing any order the petitioner shall be put on notice and 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 the copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the party.
10. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J) shakir/- U