Dismissed

Ayodhya Ram And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC3 Dec 2018WPC/2520/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension and cancellation of a petitioner's PDS license. The court held the petition as not maintainable, observing the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable; the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate forum.

Ayodhya Ram And Ors. Vs State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2520 of 2017

¶3

Ayodhya Ram

¶4

Taimul Bibi

¶5

Lalita Devi ….. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj

¶9

The Sub-divisional Officer, Medninagar, Palamau at Daltonganj

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Nowa Bazar, Palamau at Daltonganj

¶11

….. Respondents

¶12

----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

----For the Petitioners: Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi For the State: Mr. A.C to S.C-I

¶14

¶15

06/03.12.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing memo No. 129 dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No.3 has suspended the PDS license of the petitioner No.1 with immediate effect and issued show cause as to why his PDS license should not be cancelled. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 678 dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the PDS license of the petitioner No.1 being License No. 9/2008 has been cancelled.

¶16

At the very outset, learned A.C to S.C-I submits that the petitioner has got efficacious/statutory/alternative remedy of preferring appeal against the impugned order as contained in memo No. 678 dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has got efficacious/statutory/alternative remedy of preferring appeal against the impugned order as contained in memo No. 678 dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

¶18

The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶19

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶20

Satish/-

Ayodhya Ram And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayodhya Ram And Ors. 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

Rameshwar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Laksham Prasad Baranwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balbhadra Das Vs Collectariate

Akaank Water Suppliers Through Its Proprietors Chandra Shekhar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dtv Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radhey Shyam Singh And Ors. Vs Co. Operative