Allowed

Bijay Bahadur Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2015WPC/3004/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a PDS license and refusal to restore a defaulted miscellaneous case, the High Court held that since the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before cancellation, the original proceedings should be restored for merits.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 17.11.2013 and 24.04.2015 quashed; cost of Rs. 1,000 awarded to District Legal Services Authority; Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 restored.

Bijay Bahadur Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3004 of 2015

¶3

Bijay Bahadur Singh, son of Late Guput Nath Singh, residents of Sector-IX-C, Dukan No. 20/2005, P.O. Sector-IX, B.S. City, P.S. Harla, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand ... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Food & Civil Supply, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, DistrictBokaro, Jharkhand

¶8

S.D.O., Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶9

Block Supply Officer, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand ... … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sweta Singh, J.C. to G.P. V -----

¶12

Order No. 04 Dated: 14.09.2015

¶13

Aggrieved by orders dated 17.11.2013 and 24.04.2015 in Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

2. On an allegation that during inspection on 07.06.2011, 25.06.2011, 29.06.2011 and 14.07.2011, the petitioner's PDS shop was found closed without information, the licence for PDS shop was cancelled vide order dated 23.07.2011. The petitioner preferred Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 however, on 17.11.2013 the Misc. Case was dismissed in default. The petitioner filed restoration application however, it was also dismissed on 24.04.2015. The entire proceeding in Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 has been produced by the petitioner and the plea taken by the petitioner is not on merits of the case and therefore, at the admission stage itself, this writ petition is being disposed of.

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the PDS licence was cancelled without affording an opportunity of

¶16

¶17

hearing to the petitioner and Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011, challenging order dated 23.07.2011, was dismissed in default. It is contended that the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 would disclose that on several occasions the Presiding Officer did not hold the court and under such impression on 17.11.2013, the petitioner did not appear in Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 and the case was thus, dismissed in default.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterates that on several occasions the petitioner did not appear in Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 and therefore, it was dismissed in default on 17.11.2013. The petitioner failed to disclose a valid reason for his non-appearance and therefore, there is no infirmity in rejecting application for restoration.

¶19

5. I find that Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 was instituted on 14.10.2011 and it was admitted on 11.11.2011. On the the next date, the petitioner filed hajri. Thereafter, on most of the occasions the Presiding Officer did not hold the court and on 17.11.2013, merely recording that on several occasions the petitioner has failed to prosecute the matter, dismissed the Misc. Case. In the application for restoration the petitioner took a plea that he was not keeping good health. It appears that the petitioner produced record of his treatment however, order dated 24.04.2015 simply records dismissal of application for restoration. The authority has failed to record a finding that the plea taken by the petitioner was false or that the plea taken by the petitioner is not sufficient to restore Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011. The petitioner has contended that licence was cancelled on 23.07.2011 without hearing him and since Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 has been dismissed in default, I am of the opinion that one opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to contest the case on merits.

¶20

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶21

¶22

Orders dated 17.11.2013 and 24.04.2015 are hereby quashed however, with cost of Rs. 1,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Bokaro District Legal Services Authority, within four weeks. The Misc. Case No. 93 of 2011 is restored to its original file.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

Manish

Bijay Bahadur Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Bahadur Singh 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

Jainul Abedin and Anr. Vs Meraj Ahmed And Ors.

Kauleshwar Oraon Alias Kamal Oraon Alias Kaleshwar Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Smt Seema Agarwal Vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Anita Devi

Employers in Relation to the Management of Ms Tisco Ltd. Now Tata Steel Ltd. Vs Their Workman Represented Through N G Arun Organizing Secretary Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh

Rajgir Rajak Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.