Allowed

Brajendra Nath Trivedi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Aug 2012CWJC/7917/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court quashed the cancellation of the petitioner's PDS licence and the appellate order. The court held that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity as the inspection report was not disclosed, and the inquiring authority was improper. Mater remitted for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

S.D.O. and Collector orders quashed; matter remitted to Collector to reconsider as original authority, disclose documents, and pass fresh orders.

Brajendra Nath Trivedi 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.7917 of 2005 ====================================================== Brajendra Nath Trivedi, son of late Rajendra Nath Trivedi, resident of Village-Dharaut, P.S.-Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Jehanabad. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.N.K.Agrawal, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and Mr. D.N.Tiwari, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.Arshad Alam, SC-III with P.K.Jha, AC. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 30-08-2012 Annexure-1 is the order of the S.D.O. dated 10.01.2003, by which the PDS licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The order is cryptic one and only of four lines which mentions that the show cause of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Hence, his licence was being cancelled. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector who heard the matter and, on the basis of the inspection report submitted against the petitioner, he rejected the appeal.

¶2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inspection report of the S.D.O. was not made available to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner was not in a position to challenge the finding that, out of 23 consumers only one consumer had

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.7917 of 2005 (6) dt.30-08-2012

¶4

2 / 3

¶5

accepted the receipt of foodgrains. He submits that since the names of other 22 consumers were not disclosed to him, who had denied having received the foodgrains, petitioner was not in a position to demonstrate from the records that, in fact, he had supplied foodgrains to them also and they had made false statement before the S.D.O.

¶6

There is nothing on record nor does the order of the Collector discloses that the show cause notice to the petitioner by the S.D.O. dated 26.12.2002 was accompanied with the inspection report. In the circumstances, it appears that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner in the matter before his licence was cancelled, which order was approved by the Collector.

¶7

Respondents have filed their counter affidavits. But in the counter affidavit also it is not stated that the enquiry report was served on the petitioner.

¶8

Moreover, from the order of the Collector as well as the enquiry report it appears that inspecting authority was S.D.O. himself who submitted his report. In the circumstances, it was not proper to him to hear the matter himself, consider the show cause of the petitioner and pass orders for cancellation of the licence.

¶9

In the circumstances, the order of the S.D.O. dated

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.7917 of 2005 (6) dt.30-08-2012

¶11

3 / 3

¶12

10.01.2003, as contained in Annexure-1, as well as the order of the Collector dated 16.05.2005, as contained in Annexure-2, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector to reconsider it as original authority, issue notice to the petitioner, giving him all the relevant documents including the enquiry report, give him opportunity to file show cause and thereafter hear the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶13

The writ application is accordingly allowed with the

¶14

aforesaid observations and directions.

¶15

Arvind/-

¶16

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Brajendra Nath Trivedi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajendra Nath Trivedi 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

Lila Devi Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Birendra Kumar Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Ellite Leasing Ltd. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Durga Construction Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.