Petitioner challenged suspension of her pds dealership license after providing a reply to show-cause notice but received no order. Court remitted matter to District Supply Officer to pass appropriate order after hearing.
Matter remitted to District Supply Officer to pass appropriate order on the reply dated 26.11.2014 after giving opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 4326 of 2016
Meena Devi, wife of Sri Suresh Sao, resident of VillageNagwa, P.O. & P.S. – Chouparan, District- Hazaribagh.
… … Petitioner
… … Respondents ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
05 /23.01.2019 Heard Ms. Kumari Rashmi, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Suraj Prakash, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
2
circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.”
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by suspension of Public Distribution Licence by the impugned order and in spite of filing reply, no order has been passed by the Respondent No. 3.
5. Counsel for the respondents submits that the instant writ petition has been filed against suspension of dealership and the petitioner by the same order was directed to respond to the allegations. He also submits that pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2014, the petitioner has already responded through reply dated 26.11.2014 on which it appears that no order has been passed.
6. Counsel for the respondents further submits that accordingly, the matter may be remitted to the District Supply Officer for passing an appropriate order as the District Supply Officer is the appropriate authority for the purpose.
7. After hearing the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that PDS license of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 12.11.2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his PDS license be not terminated. Pursuant to this, the petitioner has already filed a response vide reply dated 26.11.2014 before the Respondent No. 3. As submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, no order has been passed pursuant to reply dated 26.11.2014. However as per submission of the respondent, the competent authority to consider the reply of the petitioner is concerned District Supply Officer.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Supply Officer along with a representation enclosing a copy of the order, and reply dated 26.11.2014 for redressal of her
3
grievances. The concerned District Supply Officer is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension of the petitioner's Public Distribution pds license violates her substantive rights requiring an order on the reply.
Meena Devi
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Civil and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barhi
The Block Supply Officer, Chouparan
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
