Remanded

Upendra Kumar Singh v. Collectariate

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2015WPC/4002/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the indefinite suspension of his PDS shop licence initiated over 20 months ago. The court observed that the licence was suspended vide memo dated 20.09.2012, followed by a show-cause notice and reply, but no final decision was taken by the relevant authorities.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to take a final decision on the suspension/termination of the PDS shop licence within a period of six weeks.

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Collectariate — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 4002 of 2013

¶2

Upendra Kumar Singh, S/o- Sri Prashidh Singh, Vill-Pokhraha, Gulabjhari, Naudiha Bazar, Palamau

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau

¶6

The Sub Divisional Officer, Chattarpur, Palamau

¶7

… ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. D.S. Hirani, J.C. to A.A.G.

¶10

¶11

04/20.01.2015 Seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, Chattarpur, Palamau to release the shop of the petitioner, which has been suspended vide memo dated 20.09.2012, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

Briefly stated, the petitioner was granted licence with respect to a PDS shop at Chattarpur. A First Information Report being F.I.R. No. 55 of 2012 for offence under Sections 414/411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was lodged and vide memo dated 20.09.2012, the licence of the said PDS shop was suspended.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, a licence cannot be kept suspended for more than 90 days however, in the present case, till date no decision has been taken by the respondent-Sub Divisional Officer. It is further submitted that a licence may be cancelled only on the allegation of breach of condition of licence and mere

¶14

pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for keeping the licence with respect to the PDS shop suspended for an indefinite period.

¶15

Ms. D.S.Hirani, J.C. to A.A.G., the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that in the F.I.R. no. 55 of 2012, charge-sheet has been submitted.

¶16

From the aforesaid facts brought on record, it appears that licence was suspended vide memo dated 20.09.2012 to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.03.2013 which has been found unsatisfactory. Again, vide letter dated 11.05.2013, a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his reply vide letter dated 14.05.2013 however, no final decision has been taken by the respondents in this matter so far. I am of the opinion that the respondents are required to take a decision with respect to suspension/termination of the licence for PDS shop granted to the petitioner and accordingly, respondent no. 3 is directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks, in accordance with law.

¶17

The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶18

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶19

Tanuj/-

Upendra Kumar Singh v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar Singh v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs Collectariate

Sayed MD Nasim Vs Haji Syed Md Shamim And Others

Mukti Mahato Vs Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation

Shanti Devi Vs Rural Works Department

MD Sane Raza Ansari Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Smt Gangotri Devi Vs Food Supply