← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/6029/2018disposed

Bhushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-24Mr. Justice Vikash Jain3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6029 of 2018 =========================================================== Bhushan Singh, S/o Ramaswarath Singh, resident of Village Karkat Bigha, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Paliganj, District Patna.

3. The Block Supply Officer, Paliganj, District Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 57(aa) dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Paliganj, Patna (Annexure-3) by which the licence of the petitioner bearing No. 154 of 2016-17 has been cancelled with immediate effect; and for further direction to the said respondent-Licensing Authority to restore the licence of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insufficient opportunity of only 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. It is submitted

Patna High Court CWJC No.6029 of 2018 dt.24-04-2018 2/3 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 Sub-Divisional 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. It is further submitted that the show cause notice did not indicate the proposed cancellation of the licence which is a mandatory

Patna High Court CWJC No.6029 of 2018 dt.24-04-2018 3/3 requirement in terms of Clause 7(ii) of the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007. Reliance is placed on Prasuani Khirodhar Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2015(3) PLJR 189.

5. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 57(aa) dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Paliganj, Patna (Annexure3) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Paliganj, Patna (respondent no. 2) to issue an appropriate show cause notice and 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. 2.

6. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 02.05.2018 Transmission Date N.A.