Dismissed

Sachidanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC19 Jun 2013CWJC/12350/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders cancelling the petitioner's Public Distribution System licence. The court held that the licensing and appellate authorities proceeded in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a hearing and did not find the decision perverse or arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed; the orders of the licensing authority and the appellate authority were affirmed.

Sachidanand Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.12350 of 2012 (2) dt.19-06-2013 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12350 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Sachidanand Prasad S/o Late Ram Parichan Ram R/o Village- Chapra, P.S. and Anchal- Obera, District- Aurangabad (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar) 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Daudnagar, Aurangabad 4. The Block Development Officer, Obera, Aurangabad 5. The Block Supply Officer, Obera, Aurangabad .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/S Rajni Kant Mishra, Nityanand Jha, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, AC to GP16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 2 19-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.8.2010 passed in P.D.S. Case No. 37 of 2009 by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad by which he has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 1.11.2008 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Daudnagar, Aurangabad cancelling the Public Distribution System Licence No.17/0/91 of the petitioner.

¶4

The petitioner was a licence holder under the Public Distribution System since the year 1991. In 2008 a complaint was made against the petitioner by as many as 40 consumers

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.12350 of 2012 (2) dt.19-06-2013 2

¶6

attached to the shop and an enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Block Supply Officer, Obera who gave his enquiry report on 18.10.2008 enclosing the statements of 19 consumers. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report which he replied. The Sub-divisional Officer, Daudnagar, however, after considering the enquiry report and the show cause of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed irregularities under the Public Distribution System by not producing the stock register and further the stock of rice was short by 2.5 quintals and the stock of wheat was short by 7.98 quintals under the Annapurna Scheme. The third allegation was that the petitioner did not lift kerosene oil for June, 2008 allowing the same to lapse. After considering the aforesaid allegations the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 1.11.2008 of the Subdivisional Officer, Daudnagar. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.8.2010.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are not correct as the petitioner had necessary stock register and had also explained the allegation of shortage of food grains in the shop that the said

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.12350 of 2012 (2) dt.19-06-2013 3

¶9

food grains had been kept in his house because of bad condition of earthen floor of the shop. Regarding non-lifting of kerosene oil the stand taken was that there was no stock of kerosene oil with the wholesaler.

¶10

It is evident from the materials on the record that the licensing authority and the appellate authority have proceeded in the matter in accordance with law and have given opportunity to the petitioner by providing him with copy of enquiry report of the Block Supply Officer and thereafter passed the order after considering the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner.

¶11

This Court in its writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the decision of the licensing and appellate authorities and it is for the said authorities to consider all aspects of the matter. So long as the decision taken by the respondent authorities is not found to be perverse or arbitrary, this Court would not normally interfere with the said decision. The fact regarding shortage of food grains is practically admitted by the petitioner by stating that the goods had been kept in his house. It is evident that the petitioner was required to keep the stock of food grains under the Public Distribution System in his shop and in case for certain reasons the same had to be kept anywhere else then prior permission was required from the authorities but admittedly the

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.12350 of 2012 (2) dt.19-06-2013 4

¶13

same has not been done.

¶14

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the appellate authority and the licensing authority. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶16

spal/-

Sachidanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachidanand Prasad 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

Kamal Ahmad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ranjeet Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Shri Gauri Talkies Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Rajni Kant Pathak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shankar Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shiv Sharan Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.