Allowed

Urmila Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC2 Sept 2013CWJC/12357/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her Fair Price Shop licence. The Court quashed the impugned order because the inspection was conducted by an unauthorized Block Statistical Supervisor and the petitioner was not provided the enquiry report. Additionally, the show cause notice was invalid as it did not explicitly propose licence cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.5.2012 cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence is quashed and the writ application is allowed.

Urmila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12357 of 2012

¶2

	================ Urmila Devi W/O Panchayat- Hulaschak 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Sub-Divisional 3. The Block Statistic ================	====================================== Khublal Prasad R/O Village- Jahauddin Chak, Bir, P.S.- Dhanaruwa, Distt.-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Officer, Masaurhi, Patna Supervisor, Dhanaruwa, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ======================================
	Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ================	: Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari : Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, A.C. to G.P.2. ======================================
	CORAM: HONOUR DATTA ORAL ORDER	ABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR
6	02-09-2013 Heard lea counsel for the Stat The petitio passed by the Sub- cancelled the Fair petitioner.	rned counsel for the petitioner and learned e. ner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.5.2012 divisional Officer, Masaurhi, by which he has Price Shop Licence No.284 of 2007 of the

¶3

The admitted fact is that the respondent No.3, the Block Statistical Supervisor, Dhanarua inspected the shop of the petitioner and submitted an enquiry report to the licensing authority, Sub-divisional Officer, Masaurhi.

¶4

A show cause notice dated 24.11.2011 was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was making short supply of

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.12357 of 2012 (6) dt.02-09-2013

¶6

¶7

food grains to the consumers and 56 consumers had made written complaint against her in that regard.

¶8

The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause. Not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the S.D.O., Masaurhi cancelled the licence of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 16.5.2012. It is also admitted that a copy of the enquiry report of the Block Statistical Supervisor was not supplied to her. The stand taken is that the petitioner did not ask for the said report.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the notification issued by the State Government in the gazette notification dated 25.5.2007 published in the Official Gazette on 21.2.2005 (this Court fails to understand how a notification of a subsequent month could have been published in the Gazette of more than three months prior to the said notification) the State Government, in terms of clause 10 of the Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2001, has authorized as many as 23 categories of persons with regard to power of search and seizure which includes the power to inspect and search the Fair Price Shop for any transaction of Fair Price Shop. The said list of 23 persons does not include the Block Statistical Supervisor.

¶10

It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel that the enquiry report itself is without any authority of law as the Block Statistical

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.12357 of 2012 (6) dt.02-09-2013

¶12

¶13

Supervisor could not have so acted being an officer without any authority in terms of the notification dated 25.5.2007. It is, thus, submitted that the entire proceedings based on such an inspection report are without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in addition, the non-supply of the report of the Block Statistical Supervisor on the basis of which the order has been passed is also violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶15

It is also the stand of learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific names of the consumers, who had made complaint against the petitioner, are to be found in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and thus no effective reply to the show cause could have been filed by the petitioner against any such allegations made by shadowy non-existing figures.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the Sub-divisional Officer, being the licensing authority, had rightly authorized the Block Statistical Supervisor in view of the administrative exigency like a shortage of hands for inspection of P.D.S. shops and thus the action is not unauthorized as the notification dated 25.5.2007 does not prevent the licensing officer to authorize a subordinate officer to make such inspection.

¶17

It is further submitted by him that the enquiry report was

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.12357 of 2012 (6) dt.02-09-2013

¶19

¶20

not sought by the petitioner in the course of the proceedings and thus she cannot allege any grievance regarding non-supply of the enquiry report.

¶21

On a consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, I find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

The Block Statistical Officer, being not among the persons authorized under clause 10 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 in the notification dated 25.5.2007 issued under the said clause, could not have made any such entry and inspection or search of the fair price shop or any premises relevant to transactions or business of the fair price shop and any action based on such enquiry is wholly without any authority of law.

¶23

I also find that the licensing authority was obliged to supply the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report on which she proposed to rely and which was the basis of the cancellation of the proceedings.

¶24

I further find that even the show cause in the matter has not been properly issued as it merely contains the allegations against the petitioner without informing her that the proceedings were for the cancellation of licence. It is evident from clause 7 of

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.12357 of 2012 (6) dt.02-09-2013

¶26

¶27

the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order dated 20.2.2007 that no order of cancellation can be made unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity against the proposed cancellation. Thus, the show cause notice also is contrary to law as it does not state that the licence of the petitioner was proposed to be cancelled.

¶28

On a consideration of the entire matters, the impugned order dated 16.5.2012 is quashed.

¶29

The writ application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶30

V.P.Sinha/-

¶31

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

Urmila Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila 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

Shankar Sah and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Urmila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Shakil Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Madhumala Kumari @ Madhumala D Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Shakil Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.