Vijay Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11516 of 2018 =========================================================== Vijay Paswan son of Sri Binda Paswan Resident of village - Aaropur, Police Station - Tankupa, District - Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Tankuppa, Dist - Gaya. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.05.2018 in Memo No. 625 by which the learned SubDivisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, has cancelled the license No. 51/2016 of the petitioner carrying on business under the Public Distribution System; and for direction upon the respondent no. 3 to continue allocation to the Public Distribution System shop of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an insufficient opportunity of three days was granted for filing show cause

and the impugned order has been passed as the petitioner was unable to file the show cause within the stipulated time. In fact, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the show cause notice had been served on the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Fulpati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, 2013(1) PLJR 718, wherein it has been observed as follows - "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not know about the notice as she was ill during the period. Hence, she did not file show cause and in her absence the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order cancelling her licence. He also submits that in appeal petitioner had brought this issue as ground no.

(B) in the memo of appeal but the Collector has not considered the same and has brushed aside the ground taken by the petitioner and held that the ground of illness taken by the petitioner appears to be 'Post Thought'. He submits that illness or no illness, only three days time was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was very short, and thereafter, he passed final orders within one week, without ensuring that notice was served on her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. From the impugned order of the SubDivisional Officer also it does not appear that he has take care to ascertain service of notice was affected on the petitioner or not. The fact that after issue of notice on 16th of November, 2011 he passed final orders on

22nd of November, 2011 without mentioning in his order that the notice had been served on the petitioner, shows that he acted in hot haste."

4. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure-2) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya (respondent no. 3) to take a fresh decision in the matter after grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the respondent no. 3.

5. The writ petition stands allowed as above. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 02.07.2018 Transmission Date N.A.