Munilal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.72 of 2023 ====================================================== Munilal Yadav son of Chhangali Yadav, resident of Village-Jamaipur, P.S.- Shahkund, District-Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 3.

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, District-Bhagalpur. 5.

The District Supply Officer, Bhagalpur.

6.

The District Manager, State Food Nigam, Bhagalpur. 7.

The Block Supply Officer, Shahkund, Bhagalpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, assailed the order passed by the SDO, whereby the licence of PDS shop of the petitioner was cancelled after conducting an inspection and after issuing a show cause notice to the dealer.

3. In the show cause notice, it is mentioned that a copy of the enquiry report is being enclosed. The reply to the show cause notice does not reflect any objection raised by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.72 of 2023 dt.24-04-2023 2/2 dealer of non-supply of copy of the enquiry report.

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the copy of the enquiry report was not made available. There is no such document to support his argument made, moreso, as the petitioner himself does not object a raised objection regarding non supply of the enquiry report.

5. On the factual aspects, the allegations made against the petitioner were examined after perusing his reply both by the S.D.O. and the Colloctor and thereafter by the Commissioner, but no illegality can be said to have been committed in taking the decision, which does not warrant any interference.

6. As such, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Amrendra/- Item No. 16 AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.04.2023 Transmission Date