Sri Ambika Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.17944 of 2017 dt.10-07-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17944 of 2017 =========================================================== Sri Ambika Prasad, S/o Late K. Prasad, R/o Village- Naugachhia, Ward No.-19, P.S.- Naugachhia, Sub Division- Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food & Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, District- Bhagalpur.

4. The Deputy Director, Food & Consumer Protection, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.

5. The District Supply Officer, District- Bhagalpur.

6. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Naugachhia, DistrictBhagalpur.

7. The Block Supply Officer, Block- Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ARBIND UJJAWAL - SC4 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-07-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.04.2010 as contained in memo no. 324 issued under the signature of the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Naugachhia, District Bhagalpur wherein and whereunder the PDS Licence No. 45/1985 of the petitioner has been suspended under the PDS Control Orders, 2007.

2. At the very outset, this Court takes note that the petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 23.04.2010 issued by the Sub

Patna High Court CWJC No.17944 of 2017 dt.10-07-2018 Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority and has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of more than seven years. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for such delay.

3. This Court is therefore, of the view that the petitioner did not act with due diligence and there has been delay and laches on his part. If he is aggrieved with the action of the respondent authorities, he ought to have approached this Court for appropriate relief immediately. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.07.2018 Transmission Date NA