Dismissed

Parshuram Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Mar 2023WPC/70/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders cancelling the petitioner's P.D.S shop license as not maintainable, directing the petitioner to file a second appeal under the relevant state order within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file second appeal under Clause 30(i) of the Order, 2019 within three weeks with application for condonation of delay.

Parshuram Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 70 of 2020

¶3

Parshuram Mehta ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Palamau ….. Respondents ----- CORAM

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C to Sr. S.C-III

¶10

¶11

06/17.03.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 303/Go. dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby P.D.S shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2-the appellate authority whereby the said order passed by the respondent No.3 has been upheld.

¶12

Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned A.C to Sr. S.C-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has got alternative/statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring second appeal under Clause 30(i) of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order, 2019’] before the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau against the impugned order dated 01.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.2.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has got alternative/statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring second appeal under Clause 30(i) of the Order, 2019 before the Commissioner, Palamau Division against the order dated 01.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the appellate order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.2, I

¶14

am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

¶15

If the petitioner prefers second appeal invoking the aforesaid provision of the Order, 2019 before the Commissioner, Palamau Division against the order dated 01.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the appellate order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 within three weeks from today along with an application seeking condonation of delay, the second appellate authority shall liberally consider the said application and shall proceed to hear and dispose of the second appeal on merit in accordance with law.

¶16

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶17

Satish/-

Parshuram Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Mehta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Runti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Rani Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhash Deo Soni Vs State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Shailendra Kumar Engineer and Contractor through Its Proprietor Shailendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand