Patna High CourtCWJC/14145/2017dismissed

Amrendra Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-07-19Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14145 of 2017 ====================================================== Amrendra Kumar Ram, Son of Late Jitan Ram, Resident of Village- Rampur Daud, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Gopalganj.

2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.

3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.

4. The District Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj.

5. The District Supply Officer, Gopalganj.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Kuchaikote Block, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, GP-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 01.03.2008(Annexure-3), passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj, who had cancelled the PDS licence of the petitioner being Licence No. 134/2007 on the ground that the petitioner as a PDS licensee was making irregular supply of kerosene oil to the consumers and on complaint of the consumers vide Memo No. 225 dated 06.02.2008, the petitioner was issued show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj having found the show cause reply of the petitioner not satisfactory, cancelled

Patna High Court CWJC No.14145 of 2017 dt.19-07-2018 2/2 the dealership vide order dated 14.02.2008(Annexure-7). The petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed for default on 17.10.2011 and the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed for default on 06.03.2013 as the petitioner did not appear.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the dealership of the petitioner has been cancelled and on his own volition he did not appear before the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority.

5. Considering the fact that the dealership has been cancelled in the year 2008 and the petitioner was not vigilant as both his appeal and revision were dismissed for default, now after 10 years no relief could be granted. This application is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Rajesh/- (Nilu Agrawal, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.07.2018 Transmission Date NA