Disposed

Chamru Mian v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Jun 2017WPC/2959/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop licence due to criminal conviction. Holds that the petitioner can apply afresh for a licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, as there is no bar after the 2007 cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Disposed the writ petition by directing the petitioner to apply afresh for the licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984.

Chamru Mian Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 2959 of 2011

¶2

-----

¶3

Chamru Mian s/o Inamat Mian resident of village – Rajpura PS Godda(M) District Godda Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Godda

¶6

3.The District Supply Officer, Godda

¶7

4.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda

¶8

Respondents

¶9

----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶10

-----

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr.Uday Kant Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sharad Kaushal, JC to AAG

¶12

----

¶13

Dated : 14th June, 2017

¶14

This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by SubDivisional Officer, Godda, (Annexure – 1) whereby the petitioner's licence no.13/1991 of Fair Price Shop, at village Rajpura, was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case and also for quashing the orders dated 23.09.2010 and 28.03.2011 respectively passed in Misc. Appeal No.04/08-09 and Misc. Revision No.04/2010 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Godda and also for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing respondents for renewal of the licence of the petitioner as he has been granted bail by High Court during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1459/2007, vide order dated 16.08.2008.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel that in the cancellation order of licence, it has not been stated as to which provision of law or what terms and conditions of licence was violated and the licence has been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. Learned counsel has submitted that this Court in W.P(C) No.2293/2008, dated 12.05.2008, in similar circumstances had set aside the order of attachment of the fair price shop and directed the authority to restore the unit of fair price shop to the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the decision relied upon by learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case licence was

¶17

not cancelled rather there was attachment of fair price shop, whereas in the instant case licence was cancelled as far back as in the year 2007. That if the petitioner has been acquitted, there is no hindrance or bar for him to apply afresh for grant of licence for a fair price shop, before the competent authority.

¶18

Heard. Admittedly, the licence was cancelled way back in 2007. There is no bar under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 for applying afresh for issuance of licence for a fair price shop before the competent authority. If the petitioner files an application for grant of licence for the fair price shop, the competent authority shall consider and pass necessary order in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is hereby disposed off.

¶20

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶21

dey

Chamru Mian v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chamru Mian v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrimati Jagapatiya Devi And Ors. Vs Amrik Singh And Anr.

Bhagwan Das Yadav Vs Union Of India And Ors.

Antu Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Gopal Ram Ganjhu And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt Paramanik Upasi and Ors. Vs the Union of India through the General Manager South Eastern Railway

Samudra Shree Nath Shahdeo Vs Yashwant Nath Shahdeo And Anr.