Patna High CourtCWJC/25460/2013allowed

Babloo Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-10-06Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25460 of 2013 ====================================================== Babloo Rai Son Of Sardan Rai Resident Of Village And P.O. Pakara, P.S. Navgachhiya, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Food And Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Navgachhiya, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-10-2015 The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 18.9.2013, passed by respondent no.2 by which his PDS licence no. 36 of 1994 has been cancelled.

The petitioner submits that as he did not deposit the pay in slip from January, 2013 to August 2013 for lifting of food grains of B.P.L. Scheme, his licence was cancelled. The petitioner states that on account of illness in the family, he could not deposit the Bank Draft. In support of his submission, the petitioner had produced all the relevant documents before the authorities concerned, but the same was not considered by them. The petitioner further submits that apart from the said allegations, there is no allegation against him. He assures the Court of no further default in future.

Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner even

Patna High Court CWJC No.25460 of 2013 (2) dt.06-10-2015 2/2 did not inform the authorities concerned that he is unable to deposit the Bank Draft on account of illness in the family. In my view, in case the petitioner was unable to deposit the Bank Draft for lifting the food grains under B.P.L. Scheme, he should have informed the authorities about it. However, taking into consideration the submission of the petitioner that the default was not willful and there has been no previous default in the preceding year, the impugned order cancelling his license is set aside. In the result, this writ application is allowed.

Shashi.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) U