Dismissed

Asha Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Oct 2012CWJC/18881/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PDS dealer challenged rejection of her licence renewal after a multi-year delay. The High Court held that statutory provisions limited renewal to a short grace period after original expiry, allowing no bulk renewal years later. Writ application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ application challenging the rejection of the PDS dealer's licence renewal claim was dismissed.

Asha Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18881 of 2008

¶2

====================================================== Asha Devi wife of Sitaram Singh, resident of village – Gheghta under Gram Panchayat – Piraita, P O & District – Ara (Bhojpur) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur (Ara). 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Ara Sadar. 4. The District Supply Officer, District – Bhojpur (Ara) 5. Block Supply Officer, Ara Sadar. 6. Munni Devi, wife of Ram Lal Das, resident of village – Gheghta, under Piraita Gram Panchayat, P S and District – Ara (Bhojpur) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Manbansh For the Respondent No.6: Mr. N K Agrawal, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 10 01-10-2012 Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.8.2007/19.9.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ara. By virtue of this order, contained in Annexure-9, the Collector, Bhojpur in Misc. Case No.35 of 2006-07 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for accepting renewal of her licence as a PDS dealer, which the petitioner assails as being violative of her right of hearing as well as right for renewal. Some facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had a valid PDS licence which was renewed in the year 1999. After its expiry in December, 2000, no renewal of the licence was taken though, it seems, for one reason or the other, she was allowed to continue

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.18881 of 2008 (10) dt.01-10-2012

¶4

2 / 5

¶5

her business as a PDS dealer till the anomaly arose or was pointed out. The licensing authority thereafter decided to allocate the units or the quota for distribution to private respondent No.6 Munni Devi, the nearest adjoining PDS dealer in that area. The dispute arose thereafter which finally ended upon at the door of the Collector.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be evident from the letter issued at the level of the Commissioner-cumSecretary, Food and Civil Supplies, dated 10^th April, 2003 that the factum of many a PDS licensees not renewing their licence within time frame has been talked about and direction was issued upon the licensing authority to strictly follow the law. He, however, submits that para 2 of the letter does envisage a kind of amnesty or of one time indulgence for those shopkeepers who had not obtained renewal of licence in the past by paying the late fee. When the petitioner learnt about this aspect of the matter she did deposit a challan, which is Annexure-7 to the writ application, which includes late fee. It should have been accepted and her licence ought to have been renewed. The Collector therefore was wrong in rejecting her plea for renewal.

¶7

Private respondent No.6, represented through senior counsel, draws the attention of this Court to the Bihar Trade

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.18881 of 2008 (10) dt.01-10-2012

¶9

3 / 5

¶10

Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, as it then was and governs the issue. Attention has been drawn to Clause 4 (1)(c), which reads as under:

¶11

“4.Issue of Licence – (1) (a) ………………………….. (b) ……………………………………………………. (c ) The licence shall be valid up to 31^st December next; and

¶12

(d)…………………………………………………….. (2)……………………………………………………… (3) …………………………………………………….. (4) …………………………………………………….. (5)……………………………………………………..” Another relevant provision to which attention has been

¶13

drawn is Clause 5, which deals with renewal of licence, which reads as under:

¶14

“5. Renewal of Licence – An application for renewal of a licence shall be made along with the fees determined under clause 6 to the Licensing Authority in Form „B‟. The licence may be renewed for one year/three years on the payment of renewal fee prescribed in Schedule IV. In case the licensee fails to furnish the application along with fee within the stipulated time i.e. 31^st December, the Licensing Authority may entertain an application up to 31^st January, on the payment of late fee as specified below:-

¶15

(i) for the first fortnight Rs.2.

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.18881 of 2008 (10) dt.01-10-2012

¶17

4 / 5

¶18

(ii) for the second fortnight Rs.5.”

¶19

The contention of the learned senior counsel representing

¶20

the private respondent is that if these two statutory provisions are taken into consideration, the term of a licence comes to an end on 31^st December in the year in which renewal was obtained. By dimming fiction the validity of the licence shall be treated to be extended till 31^st January of the subsequent year provided late fee is deposited. After that licensing authority had no power or business to accept renewal beyond the time frame fixed by the legislature, much less accepting bulk renewal fee which has been done in the present case.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner thereafter contends that the Secretary has the requisite authority and direction issued by him ought to have been respected and taken into consideration, by virtue of which the omission on behalf of the petitioner to obtain renewal of her licence ought to have been accepted.

¶22

The Court has reservation on such a contention because in the opinion of this Court, the letter of the Secretary only reminds the licensing authority about the impact of the legislative provision and the time frame with regard to validity of a PDS licence. If licence has not been renewed for so many years then it cannot be renewed after many years because the renewal must be

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.18881 of 2008 (10) dt.01-10-2012

¶24

5 / 5

¶25

demanded by 31^st of December in the year or at least till 31^st January of the next year by payment of late fee. Since the admitted position in the present case is that no renewal was sought by the petitioner after 2001 till the challan for renewal was deposited in the year 2006, the Collector was correct in holding that there was omission on the part of the licensing authority to accept such deposit or to even consider renewing the licence in bulk after so many years of expiry.

¶26

Writ application therefore is dismissed as reasoning and rationale given by the District Magistrate is based on the statutory provisions and the admitted facts and nothing else.

¶27

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶28

R.K.Pathak/-

Asha Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Devi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Sheolal Sah and Ors. Vs State

Durganand Pd. Vs State

Manoj Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Ram Kumar Sah and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Singh @ Pd.Singh Vs State

Ram Bilash Acharya Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.