Dismissed

Sunit Bouri v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2016WPC/4093/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking to quash orders cancelling his Public Distribution System (PDS) shop licence. The court found no error in the lower authorities' observations regarding the petitioner's habitual violation of licence terms and dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; cancellation of licence stands not quashed; petitioner directed to apply for fresh licence if eligible.

Sunit Bouri Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.- 4093 of 2009

¶4

Sunit Bouri

¶5

Son of Late Ashutosh Bouri, resident of village Dhotla, PO- Baragholjo, PS- Kundahit, District- Jamtara …Petitioner

¶6

-V e r s u s-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, District- Jamtara

¶10

District Supply Officer, Jamtara

¶11

The Block Supply Officer, Kundahit, PO & PS- Kundahit, District- Jamtara

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

For the Petitioners : - Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Advocate For the State-Respondent :- J.C. to G.P. II

¶15

04/02.08.2017

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.09.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara in B.M.P. No. 10 of 2007-08 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.12.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 28.12.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, by which the licence of public distribution shop of the petitioner being licence no. 01 of 1998 was cancelled.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste (S.C.) and was given a licence of public distribution shop at Charakmara Gram Panchayat (Kundahit Block) being licence no. 01 of 1998 on 25.02.1998. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, vide order dated 28.12.2007 cancelled the licence of public distribution shop of the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner in his show cause had stated that he was unwell during the period for which it has been alleged that he did not lift the food grains meant for ‘Antyodaya’ Scheme. It is further submitted that the petitioner in his show cause had brought all relevant facts to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara regarding his inability to lift the food grains on time. Learned counsel also submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, without considering the compulsive reasons due to which, the petitioner could not lift the food grains for the particular period.

¶19

Perused the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara and on perusal of the same, it appears that all the factual aspects including the submission made by the

¶20

¶21

petitioner through his show cause, have been considered. Both the authorities in the impugned orders have clearly observed that the petitioner has been in habit of violating the terms of the licence time and again and he used to ignore the orders passed by the licencing authority. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara in his impugned order has not found the show cause satisfactory and reached a conclusion that the petitioner violated the terms of the licence of public distribution shop. Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara while hearing in appeal has also considered the fact that earlier also the licnence of the petitioner was cancelled for violating the terms of the licence.

¶22

Having found no error in the impugned orders, I see no reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. However, dismissal of the present writ petition shall not come in the way of the authorities for grant of fresh licence to the petitioner for public distribution shop as per the prevailing scheme, if the petitioner is found eligible.

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Ritesh/N.A.F.R.

Sunit Bouri v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunit Bouri v. 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

Ram Ayodhya Singh Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board Through Managing Director And Ors.

Baleshwar Pandey Vs the Steel Authority of India Limited through the Chairman and Ors.

Biplab Sharma Vs Transport

Geeta Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Suman Mishra And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Emplers in Relation to the Man Vs Their Workman Being Represente