← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/22465/2019disposed

Visun Chaudhari @ Bishun Chaudhary, v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-16Mr. Justice A. Abhishek Reddy5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22465 of 2019 ====================================================== Visun Chaudhari @ Bishun Chaudhary, Son of Late Akalu Chaudhari @ Akal Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Udail of Amethi, P.s.- Wazirganj, DistrictGaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3.

The S.D.O., Sadar Gaya.

4.

The Block Supply Officer, Wazirganj, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. NK Agarwal, Sr. Adv.

:

Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. UP Singh, AC to SC4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i. For quashing the order dated 03.02.2017 as contained in Memo no.101 (Annexure-3) whereby and where under the PDS license being license No. 45/1992 granted to the petitioner for carrying a PDS shop in the Panchayat- Amethi has been cancelled.

ii. For setting aside the Appellate order dated 08.08.2019 whereby and where under the District Magistrate, Gaya (Respondent No. 2) dismissed Supply Appeal No. 12/2017 filed against the Memo no-101 whereby and where under the PDS license being license no. 45/1992 granted to the petitioner for carrying a PDS shop in the Panchayat - Amethi has been cancelled by the SDO Sadar, Gaya has been upheld.

Iii. Any other relief(s) that the petitioner may be found entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case."

2/5

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 in Supply Appeal No. 12/2017 passed by the District Magistrate i.e. Respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside as the same is against the principles of natural justice and equity. Learned counsel has stated that though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice, the District Magistrate has not considered the said explanation and passed the orders in a mechanical manner. That the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been adverted to by the District Magistrate in his order. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the District Magistrate for passing orders afresh duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present Writ Petition and stated that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel has stated that the orders passed by the District Magistrate is well reasoned order and does not require any interference of this Court and prayed to

3/5 dismiss the present Writ Petition.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate shows that the District Magistrate while passing the orders has not adverted to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has given a detailed explanation to the show cause notice, the District Magistrate has not discussed the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed the orders in a mechanical manner. This Court in a catena of cases, has held that any order that is passed has to contain the reasons for passing the said orders. Unless and until the reasons are given in the impugned order the superior authority or the Court will not be in a position to appreciate the order passed and the reason for the order being passed. In absence of any reasons in the order, it would be very difficult to either sustain or set aside the said order. Any order which is not speaking order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same has to be necessarily set aside.

6. This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of occasions. have held that any authority Court/quasi judicial authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order passed by them. Unless reasoning is given in the order, neither the party nor Courts before whom the order is challenged will be in a

4/5 position to appreciate as to what has weighed with the said authority either for dismissing or allowing the application of the petitioner. Though the quasi judicial or administrative authority are not obligated to give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial order, yet they are expected to give a reasoned order which should be precise, concisely setting out the reason for allowing or dismissing the contention/application/case.

7. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC, 785, the Hon'bleSupreme Court has held as under:

"....... while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly: a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order........."

"......A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer Reasons are the soul of orders Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities: Firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but

5/5 they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."

8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 in Supply Appeal No. 12/2017 i.e. Respondent No. 2 is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya is also set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing orders afresh. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall pass a reasoned order duly taking into account the various contentions raised by the petitioner in his explanation.

9. It is needless to mention that before passing any order the petitioner shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the party.

10. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J) Ayush/- U