Babita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3413 of 2023

¶2

¶3

Babita Devi, aged about 37 years, Wife of Suresh Saw, 2. Sarita Devi, aged about 47 years, Wife of Birendra Prasad Sah, Both are Resident of Village-Bauliya, P.O.Sonehara, Garhwa. P.S.-Dandai, Dist.-Garhwa ……

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand;

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.Ranchi.

¶8

The Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Directorate, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, Dist. Garhwa.

¶10

The District Supply Officer, Garhwa, P.Ο. & P.S. Garhwa, Dist. Garhwa.

¶11

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, Dist. Garhwa.

¶12

The Block Supply Officer, Dandai, P.O. & P.S. Dandai, Dist.- Garhwa. .……Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A-I

¶17

04:07.03.2025

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

¶20

by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure-4), passed by the 5^th respondent; whereby the license of fair price shop of the petitioners under the Public Distribution System style as Kali Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh has been cancelled.

¶21

1

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the one hand these petitioners have not received any show-cause notice before cancellation of license and on the other hand; after going through the show cause notice (Annexure-3), which he procured from the Office of District Supply Office clearly indicates that in the said show cause notice only 48 hours were given to reply. Further, from bare perusal of the impugned order it appears that the representation which was filed by the members of petitioner’s society has not been considered. Accordingly, the impugned order requires interference.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that there is a provision of appeal, however the petitioner has approached this Court without availing the same. However, he could not indicate with regard to service of show cause notice and learned counsel can also not defend why only two days was provided to the petitioner’s society for filing the reply. Moreover, he could also not demonstrate from the impugned order to the effect that the representation which was filed by the members of the society (Annexure-3) has been considered.

¶24

4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case since principle of natural justice has not been complied in the peculiar facts and

¶25

2

¶26

circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, only two days’ time has been provided and it is also not clear as to whether the said notice was received by the society because there is specific averment in paragraph no.20 of the writ petition that no show cause notice was given to the society and which has not been replied by in the counter affidavit. As such, the contention of alternative remedy raised by the respondents is not acceptable.

¶27

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and the instant writ application is allowed. However, respondents are at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding by issuing a proper show cause notice and proceed accordingly and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶28

16. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Pending I.As, if any, is also closed.

¶29

( Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Fahim/-

¶31

3

Babita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rang Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Vs State Bank of India Represented through Its Zonal Manager

Raj Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Somra Rahariya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Singh Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Revenue Registration Land Reforms

Azad Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Department of Urban Development and Housing