Partly allowed

Savitri Devi v. the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Jul 2014WPC/3995/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of a Public Distribution System shop licence held by a women's self-help group. The court held that cancelling the licence without a hearing violated natural justice and set aside the order, remanding the matter for a fresh order after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the licence is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer to give an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order within six weeks.

Savitri Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand And… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 3995 of 2013

¶2

Savitri Devi .… … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand and others … … respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : J.C. to S.C.-III

¶6

5/ 07.07.2014 Heard the parties.

¶7

In terms of resolution of the Government, as contained in Resolution No. 1580/Ranchi dated 6.8.2009, the licence for running a PDS shop is to be given to a self help group of woman, consisting of ten women or more. By virtue of that, Sheetla Mahila Samooh, Pathalgara, Chatra was given a licence bearing No. 5 of 2009 for running PDS shop situated at Pathalgara, Chatra.

¶8

In course of time, a complaint was received by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra to the effect that differences have cropped up amongst the members of the said group and on account of that, most of them have left the self help group and now they have reduced to less than ten women. Even an information was received from the Bank that said group has stopped operating its account. In that event, an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra on 13.2.2013 vide Annexure-1 wherein it has been stated that said Sheetla Mahila Samooh, Pathalgara, had reduced to less than ten members and thereby it is not entitled to have licence and on that premises, the licence granted earlier was cancelled.

¶9

Being aggrieved with that order, this writ application has been filed.

¶10

The sole point, taken on behalf of the petitioner, is that the said order, as contained in Annexure-1, is violative of principle of natural justice, as the petitioner has never been given any opportunity of hearing in the matter. The said fact never seems to have been denied by the respondent in its counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, justification has been shown

¶11

regarding cancellation of the licence but the statement of the petitioner that she has not been given opportunity of hearing has not been denied in the counter affidavit.

¶12

From the order also, it does appear that the petitioner has never been given any opportunity of being heard.

¶13

In that view of the matter, the impugned order, contained in Memo No. 34 dated 13.2.2013 (Annexure-1), can easily be said to be violative of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, it is set aside.

¶14

However, the matter is remanded back before respondent no. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra for giving an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing and then pass a fresh order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶15

Thus, this writ application stands disposed of.

¶16

(R.R. Prasad, J.)

¶17

AKT

Savitri Devi v. the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi v. the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs Nasima Khatoon And Ors.

Arvind Kumar Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Superintendent Of Police Vigilance Bureau Govt Of Jharkhand Ranchi

Priyanka Alias Priyanka Kumari Vs Jharkhand Academic Council Through Its Secretary And Anr.

Ms Dudani Coke Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Sailesh Agarwalla and Ors. Vs Axis Bank Limited Through Its Chief Manager And Anr.

Bihar Khadi Association through Its Manager Sri Deo Nandan Roy and Anr. Vs Tata Iron And Steel Company Ltd.

Bhagirath Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.