Allowed

Lakhi Chand Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC10 Jan 2013CWJC/16109/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an order cancelling a P.D.S. shop license for failing to record findings and reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply to a show cause notice, citing principles of application of mind. Fresh proceedings may be initiated.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order cancelled the license is quashed and set aside. Writ application allowed. Fresh proceedings may be initiated if required in interest of justice.

Lakhi Chand Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16109 of 2010 ====================================================== Lakhi Chand Prasad S/O Late Rameshwar Sah R/O Bhaluana, P.S.- Chandradeep, Distt.- Jamui .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar

¶2

The Sub Divisional Officer, Jamui

¶3

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate and D.N.Tiwari For the State : M/s S.D.Sanjay, AAG XII and Akash Chaturwedi, AC to AAG XII ======================================================

¶4

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER

¶5

2 10-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned A.A.G. XII for the State.

¶6

Through this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamui, being the licensing

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.16109 of 2010 (2) dt.10-01-2013

¶8

2 / 4

¶9

authority, by which he has cancelled the license of the petitioner granted for running P.D.S. shop.

¶10

At the time of hearing of this matter two questions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

First issue is that the order of cancellation has been passed without any show cause having been issued to that extent. Learned counsel has submitted a show notice dated 13.7.2010 was issued, as contained in Annexure 1, only directing the petitioner to come out with reply to satisfy the authority concerned as to why his licence should not be suspended. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice which is contained in Annexure 2 but, surprisingly, the licensing authority has cancelled the licence in place of suspending it.

¶12

The second lacuna which has been pointed out by the petitioner is that the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice has not been considered as no finding has been recorded in the impugned order as to why the grounds are not tenable.

¶13

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned A.A.G. XII submits that the order has been passed after proper consideration of the materials on record. However, he has not been able to show that even a

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.16109 of 2010 (2) dt.10-01-2013

¶15

3 / 4

¶16

copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. He has also not been able to show that any show cause notice contemplating cancellation of licence of the petitioner was ever issued upon him and, further, he has also not been able to point out from the impugned order that the grounds raised by the petitioner have been considered, discussed and rejected by recording any reason for reaching to such conclusion.

¶17

It is well settled that if any action or order is passed by the authority concerned visiting civil consequence on any person then it must assign reason for rejection of the grounds raised in the reply to the show cause notice otherwise the same would be deemed to have been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and, thus, would be in teeth of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Umesh Chandra Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1999(1) B.L.J., 548.

¶18

In above view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the impugned order as contained in Annexure 3 cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. However, this order would not preclude the authorities from initiating a fresh proceeding by issuance of proper show cause notice upon the petitioner if the same is

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.16109 of 2010 (2) dt.10-01-2013

¶20

4 / 4

¶21

required in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)
Spd/-

Lakhi Chand Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhi Chand Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Majahid Alam and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopal Sao Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ramanand Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.