Maharana Pratap Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.214 of 2022 ====================================================== Maharana Pratap, aged about 53 years, (Male), Singh S/o Late Ram Pyare Singh Resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S.- Bind, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S. Raza Ahmad (AAG 5).

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the following reliefs:- "(i) For setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 1280 dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Learned SDO.

Licensing authority, Biharsharif at Nalanda by which he was please to cancelled the PDS license of the petitioner being License No. 16/2007.

(ii) For setting aside the order dated 20.3.2016 passed by the Learned Collector, Nalanda in Supply Case No.

05/2015 by which the Learned Collector Nalanda was please to dismissed the

2/5 statutory appeal filed on the behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 19.1.2014 passed by the Learned SubDivisional Officer, Biharsharif. (iii) For setting aside the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by Learned Divisional Commissioner, Patna in EC Appeal No. 91/2016 by which the statutory revision filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the appellate authority was affirmed."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of the license. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 2016').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the full Bench passed in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases dated 26.09.2023 to buttress his contention that non-mentioning of the proposed action in the show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the

3/5 petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and thereafter take necessary action.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. This Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:

"19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:- It is mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a license to mention that there is a proposal for cancellation of his license, failing which such notice cannot be treated to be a valid notice of giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee to state his case under order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order. "

8. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action

4/5 sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.

9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, the present CWJC is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda (Respondent No. 4), the order dated 20.03.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif (Respondent No. 3) and the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna (Respondent No. 2) are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and call for his explanation by giving him reasonable time.

10. On such show-cause notice being served, the petitioner shall file his explanation within the stipulated time. On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

11. It is needless to mention that before passing any

5/5 orders, the petitioner shall be 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 a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J) shakir/- U