Quashed

Sukhdeo Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Sept 2012CWJC/3697/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's P.D.S. licence was vitiated by non-service of the enquiry report. The orders were quashed and the matter remanded to the licensing authority to serve the report and allegations, affording the petitioner an opportunity to reply before passing a final order.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 13.02.2009, 11.01.2010, and 7.8.2011 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the licensing authority to serve the enquiry report and allegations on the petitioner to enable him to file

Sukhdeo Yadav 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.3697 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Sukhdeo Yadav Son Of Late Sundar Yadav Resident Of Village And P.O.Bhawanipur (Uttar), P.S.-Pratapganj, District-Supaul

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Food And Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Koshi Commissionery, Saharsa, District-Saharsa 3. The Collector, Supaul, District-Supaul 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Birpur, District-Supaul .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rejeev Kumar Labh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar. Singh, AC to GA-VIII ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶4

3 11-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State who has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner is P.D.S. licensee. His licence no.64/07 has been cancelled on the allegation that during verification of the stock of the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner wheat and rice were found short to the extent of 10.20 and 5.55 KGs. The kerosene oil was also found short by 52 liters. Constituents of the shop of the petitioner 94 in number further alleged that petitioner has been supplying lesser quantity of kerosene oil to them and charging higher price. Having found the allegations to be true the licensing authority cancelled the licence of the petitioner under Memo No.92 dated 13.02.2009, Annexure-1 which has also been

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.3697 of 2012 (3) dt.11-09-2012

¶6

2/3

¶7

affirmed in appeal by the Collector, Supaul under order dated 11.01.2010 passed in Supply Appeal No.25/2009, Annexure-6 as also by the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa under order dated 7.8.2011 passed in Supply Revision No.16/2010, Annexure7.

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the three orders on the ground that having received the allegations against the petitioner an enquiry team was constituted which submitted enquiry report finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to be true but copy of the report was not given to the petitioner, as such, petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself.

¶9

I see substance in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner as from the counter affidavit it does not appear that the copy of the enquiry report along with allegation petition with the signature of the allegationist was ever supplied to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, I have no option but to quash the orders dated 13.02.2009, 11.01.2010, 7.8.2011, Annexures-1, 6, 7 and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority so as to enable him to serve on the petitioner not only the allegation petition with signature/L.T.I. of the allegationist as also the enquiry report and the material collected during enquiry with

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.3697 of 2012 (3) dt.11-09-2012 3/3

¶11

opportunity to the petitioner to file reply and to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. Licensing authority should furnish the copy of the allegation petition with the signature/L.T.I. of the constituents of the shop of the petitioner as also the enquiry report including the material collected during enquiry as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the licensing authority, thereafter petitioner shall submit his reply within another two weeks and the licensing authority shall pass final order within another four weeks.

¶12

The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶13

(V.N. Sinha, J)

¶14

Rajesh/-

Sukhdeo Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdeo Yadav 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

Laxmi Pd. Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Madhurima Mehta Minor Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yashwant Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar And Others

Ashok Kumar Goswami Vs the Bank of Maharastra and Ors.

Amresh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Naresh Yadav and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.