Nagendra Kumar Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9442 of 2018 =========================================================== Nagendra Kumar Bhagat son of Sri Narayan Bhagat, resident of villageHaribela, Blocl=- Bathnaha, P.S. Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Sitamarhi Sadar, district- Sitamarhi.

4. The Block Supply Officer, Block Bathnaha, District- Sitamrhi. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"(i) To quash the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi, Sadar (respondent no. 3) who has cancelled the P.D.S. shop license of the petitioner bearing license no. 1/13 vide Memo No. 276/aa, dated 03.05.2018.. (ii) To restore the license of the petitioner PDS Shop bearing license no. 1/13.

(iii) To pass any other appropriate order/orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper for the end of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short

submission to assail the impugned order on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and he was never confronted with the same with an opportunity of being heard or adducing evidence in that regard. A specific stand has been taken in paragraph-9 of the writ petition that the impugned order of cancellation of licence has been passed without providing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, though the same has been relied upon in the impugned order..

4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. The stand of the petitioner with regard to non-supply of enquiry report has not been controverted, as no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

5. In the above view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner has resulted in violation of natural justice and thus the decision making process stands vitiated. The impugned order dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Sitamarhi Sadar, District- Sitamarhi, for taking decision afresh in the matter after supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the respondent no. 3.

6. It is made clear that in case the stand of the petitioner

denying receipt of the enquiry report prior to order of cancellation being passed is found to be incorrect, the respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court for recall of this judgment.

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

Uploading Date 20.05.2018 Transmission Date N.A.