Disposed

Kuldeep Manjhi and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Dec 2012CWJC/22254/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition involving P.D.S. licensees aggrieved by a show-cause notice for shop closure and alleged misuse of license, directed the petitioners to approach the Collector in appeal to verify the identity of complainants and take a lenient view regarding maintenance of display boards.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to file an appeal before the Collector to verify complainant identities; appellate authority must condone delay if filed within 30 days and dispose within 60 days.

Kuldeep Manjhi and Anr. Vs The State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22254 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Kuldeep Manjhi Son Of Munshi Manjhi Resident Of Village - Kishunpura, Police Station - Atri, District - Gaya 2. Ramyatan Singh Son Of Shri Govind Singh Residence Of Village - Mohanpur, Police Station - Atri, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Food & Civil Supply, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate Cum Appellate Authority, Gaya 3. The District Supply Officer, Gaya 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Licensing Authority, Nimchak Bathani, H.Q. - Khizarsarai, Dist - Gaya

¶3

The Block Supply Officer, Mohada, Dist- Gaya

¶4

.... .... Respondents

¶5

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, A.C. to A.A.G.-13. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶6

2 06-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are P.D.S. licencee. They are aggrieved by the contents of Letter No. 538 dated 7.4.2012, Annexure-1, whereunder in the light of the Inspection Report submitted by the District Supply Officer they were asked to show cause as to why their P.D.S. shop was closed on 8.2.2012 and the Notice Board did not display the information required to be displayed over the same. Further the Enquiry Report indicated that during local inspection villagers reported against the petitioners that they were misusing

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.22254 of 2012 (2) dt.06-12-2012

¶8

¶9

their P.D.S. licence. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Charge Nos. 1, 2 may be true as on the fateful day i.e. 8.2.2012 on personal ground of illness of child, wife of the two petitioners respectively their shop was not opened. The Display Board also did not display the required information and the reasons for not displaying the required information has been explained in the show-cause reply filed by the two petitioners. The 3^rd and the most important ground raised against the petitioners in the enquiry report is that local people made complaint against them but it is said that the names of local people having not been disclosed in the report, it is unsafe to rely on the allegations made in the report.

¶10

Counsel for the State opposed the submission. According to him, the grounds taken in support of Charge No. 2 that the Display Board did not display the required information appears to be made out as in terms of the provisions of the Licensing Order it is the bounden duty of the P.D.S. licensee to maintain the Display Board in the shop premises so as to enable the constituents of the shop to know about the stock position and the rate payable by them. As regards Charge No. 3 that local people had made complaint against the two petitioners during local inspection, it is submitted that the name of the complainant(s) should have been included in the Enquiry Report,

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.22254 of 2012 (2) dt.06-12-2012

¶12

¶13

as such, it is not correct on the part of the counsel for the petitioners to submit that the name of the complainant(s) who levelled allegation against the two petitioners during local inspection is not included in the Inspection/Enquiry Report.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder submitted that copy of the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the petitioners, as such, petitioners are not aware about the contents of the report including the fact that the name of the complainant(s) who made allegation against the petitioners have been included in the report.

¶15

In view of the rival submission made by the counsel for the parties, I direct the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal against the order dated 7.4.2012 (Annexure-1) before the Collector of the district who shall call for the Enquiry Report and examine whether the name of the allegationist who made complaint against the two petitioners that they were misusing their P.D.S. licence has been included in the Enquiry Report. So far Ground No. 1, 2 is concerned the Appellate Authority shall take a lenient view of the matter, provided it is the first complaint against the two petitioners that they were not maintaining the display board on the date of inspection. The appeal against the impugned cancellation order be filed before the Collector of the district

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.22254 of 2012 (2) dt.06-12-2012

¶17

¶18

within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order annexing the same and if the appeal is filed within the aforesaid time Collector should not only condone the delay in filing the appeal but shall also proceed to dispose of the same within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶19

The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶20

(V.N. Sinha, J)

¶21

P.K.P.

Kuldeep Manjhi and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Manjhi and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Pathak Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Radheshyam Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Puna Deo Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Most. Rukmina Devi @ Most. Rukmina Kuwar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.