Disposed

Ujjwal Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Food

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2022WPC/1034/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court upheld the dismissed PDS license cancellation order by directing the petitioner to file an appeal with the Deputy Commissioner under Section 31 of the relevant Control Order, noting the alternate remedy exists despite lack of a show-cause.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal before Deputy Commissioner within 30 days; appeal to be disposed of within 60 days.

Ujjwal Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1034 of 2020

¶3

….....

¶4

Ujjwal Rabidas

¶5

…. ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand & Others

¶8

…. ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate : Ms. Tabassum Perween, Advocate For the Respondents/ State : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III

¶11

05/03.03.2022.

¶12

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shadab Bin Haque has submitted that the petitioner-Ujjwal Rabidas, S/o Jadu Rabidas has preferred the writ petition for quashing the order dated 11.10.2017 vide Memo No.682 dated 12.10.2017 issued by District Supply Officer, Pakur whereby without any show-cause or compliance of principle of natural justice, the PDS license of the petitioner granted in the year 1997 has been cancelled, on the ground that in the meeting the Government has taken a resolution that distribution of PDS materials shall be done by EPOS machine. The petitioner was not using EPOS machine against Govt. decision, as such, the PDS license has been cancelled.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 27 (iv) of Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017, the licensee authority can suspend the license by seeking a showcause, so as to comply the principle of natural justice before passing an order of cancellation as punishment mentioned in Section 29 of Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017, whereby such punishment has been awarded without following the principle of natural justice, which is itself not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has opposed the prayer and has submitted that though the show-cause has not been issued, as it appears from record, but there is an alternate remedy of appeal as envisaged under Section 31 of Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control)

¶16

-2-

¶17

Order, 2017 to be preferred before the appellate authority within 30 days, who will decide the same within 60 days.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that though there is an alternate remedy of appeal, but petitioner has preferred the writ petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that petitioner has chequered history as in the year 2014, there was some complain from the cardholder and thereafter show-cause was issued, but admittedly for the present cause of action, no show-cause has been issued as it appears from the record.

¶20

Considering such submissions and considering that there is an alternate remedy of appeal, this Court directs the petitioner to file appeal before the concerned Deputy Commissioner within 30 days from today. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur will consider under Section 31 (i) of the Act.

¶21

The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur shall dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of 60 days taking note of the fact that no show-cause has been issued to the petitioner before passing cancellation order.

¶22

The learned Court of appeal shall consider the appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶25

Jay/-

Ujjwal Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Food

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujjwal Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Food

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

Mrkr Pallavi Upakar Jv through Its Authorized Signatory M Vasudeva Reddy Vs East Central Railways Represented through General Manager

Mrkr Pallavi Upakar Jv through Its Authorized Signatory M Vasudeva Reddy Vs East Central Railways Represented through General Manager

Ms Vijaya Homes And Anr. Vs Gopal Chandra Tiwary And Anr.

Sports Authority of India And an Vs Union of India And Ors.

Bablu Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Sudeshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand