PDS licensee challenged cancellation of his licence for non-supply to 13 cardholders, affirmed up to revision. The High Court found substantial supply had been made, with a dispute only over 13 persons, quashed the appellate and revisional orders and set aside the S.D.O.'s cancellation, remitting the matter for fresh 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, RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2819 of 2022
----
Bipad Bhanjan Mahto (48 yrs), s/o late Bhushan Mahto, r/o Village and P.O. Landupdih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi ........ Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu, P.O., P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi
3.The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, new Collectorate Building, Kutchery premises, P.O. Kutchery, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi
4.The Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S-Sadar, District-Ranchi.... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
| For the Petitioner | :- | Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, Advocate Mrs.Ahalya Mahato, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate | ||
| For the State | :- | Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate |
| ---- |
8 /18.07.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
-1- W.P. (C) No. 2819 of 2022
13.70.2011 a memo dated 13.07.2011 was issued to show cause for suspension of license asking the petitioner to explain the charges. He submits that the petitioner has replied to the show cause after receiving the said memo immediately. However, the said license was cancelled by the S.D.O. on 27.11.2012. He further submits that against that order, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was registered as PDS Appeal No.81R 15/2012-13 which was further dismissed by the order dated 04.10.2014 and against that order, the petitioner has preferred revision before the Commissioner (South Chhotanagpur), which was remained pending there for seven years and thereafter it was dismissed on 25.04.2022. He submits that only allegation has been made that the petitioner has not supplied the articles to 13 card holders. He submits that the petitioner has already explained the things before the competent authority and it was further pointed out to the competent authority that there are some anomaly with regard to name and relatives of the said 13 persons and in view of that, the rectification was requested, however, nothing has been done by the authority concerned and without considering this aspect of the matter, the S.D.O. has passed the order which was affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. On this ground, he submits that the said impugned orders may kindly be quashed.
counsel for the petitioner that articles with regard to 13 persons were already supplied either to the persons in whose name the card was there or to their relative and that was disclosed in paragraph no.7 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
-3- W.P. (C) No. 2819 of 2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the PDS licence cancellation order of 2012 upheld at appellate and revisional stages should be quashed despite claimed supply to the 13 cardholders.
Bipad Bhanjan Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
The Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu
The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
The Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
