Dismissed

Kshitij Chandra Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2023WPC/401/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the cancellation of his PDS license and forfeiture of security deposit. The court held the petition not maintainable as the petitioner had an efficacious remedy via second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable with an observation to file a second appeal within 15 days.

Kshitij Chandra Mahto Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 401 of 2020

¶4

---

¶5

Kshitij Chandra Mahto … … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum

¶10

The Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa

¶11

…. … Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.L.Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate

¶14

For the Respondents : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, S.C. (L&C)-III Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III

¶15

Order No. 09

¶16

Dated: 22.03.2023

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (the respondent no. 2) in License Appeal No. 35 of 2018-19 whereby the order as contained in memo no. 199 dated 08.07.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum (the respondent no. 3) cancelling the petitioner’s PDS License No. 03 of 1997 as well as forfeiting his security deposit, has been affirmed and the said appeal has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 199 dated 08.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the said license of the petitioner as well as the agreement executed thereunder has been cancelled by forfeiting the security deposit.

¶18

2. Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned S.C. (L&C)-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, while raising an objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition, submits that the petitioner has efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa under Clause 30(i) of Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2019 (in short, “the Order, 2019”) against the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in License Appeal No. 35 of 2018-19 as well as order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 3 .

¶19

3. Considering the said submission of learned S.C. (L&C)-III, let the

¶20

¶21

Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa be impleaded as the respondent no. 4 in the present writ petition.

¶22

4. Office is directed to make necessary insertion in the cause title of the writ petition.

¶23

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring second appeal before the respondent no. 4 under Clause 30(i) of the Order, 2019 against the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in License Appeal No. 35 of 2018-19 as well as order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 3, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.

¶24

6. However, if the petitioner files second appeal before the respondent no. 4 against the orders dated 08.07.2009 and 15.10.2019 passed by the original as well as appellate authority respectively within 15 days from today along with an application seeking condonation of delay, the said application will be considered liberally by the respondent no. 4 who shall proceed to hear and to dispose of the second appeal according to its own merit.

¶25

7. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with aforesaid observation.

¶26

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶27

Ritesh/

Kshitij Chandra Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kshitij Chandra Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Vinita Siddharth Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

MD Arshad Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Parvej Khan Alias Jyoti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chiranjilal Tibrewal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Nath Mahto Vs M S Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Nirmala Singh Vs the Jharkhand State Housing Board Limited through Its Managing Director