Allowed

Phuldeo Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC14 Nov 2013CWJC/2403/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of his PDS licence after a one-day shop closure while lifting foodgrains. Relying on a Division Bench judgment that minor breaches do not warrant such extreme punishment, the court allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The orders cancelling the petitioner's PDS licence issued by the Subdivisional Officer and District Magistrate were quashed, and the licence restored forthwith.

Phuldeo Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 2403 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== Phuldeo Rai, aged about 46 years, son of late Nagina Rai, resident of village – Paigamberpur, Police Station – Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1 The State Of Bihar 2 The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 3 The Subdivisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (West) 4 The Block Supply Officer, Saraiya, Muzaffarpur 5 The Block Development Officer, Saraiya Block, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶5

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr Vijay Kr Verma, AC to SC V ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶6

3 14-11-2013 Petitioner is aggrieved by order as passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (West) affirmed in appeal by the District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Muzaffarpur cancelling his PDS licence. Counter affidavit has been filed. With consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for its disposal at this stage itself.

¶7

It appears an inspection was conducted in the petitioner’s premises on 29.08.2011. The premises were found closed. Accordingly, a notice (Annexure 2) was issued by the licensing authority that is the Subdivisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (West) on 05.09.2011 as to why petitioner’s licence be not cancelled. Petitioner replied with supporting papers to show that

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.2403 of 2013 (3) dt.14-11-2013

¶9

¶10

on the day when inspection was conducted, he had gone to the FCI godown to lift foodgrains for the PDS shop as per his allotment. It is because of that he had to close the shop because it cannot be operated in his absence. There were other derelictions also to which petitioner gave in his explanation. Not being satisfied, the Subdivisional Officer cancelled the licence of the petitioner by order dated 14.10.2011 as contained in Annexure 6 to this writ petition. Petitioner came to this Court and was relegated to the appellate authority. Having thus moved the appellate authority without success, he has come to this Court. The order of the appellate authority is Annexure 1 to the writ petition dated 28.12.2012.

¶11

Shri Anand K Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has sustained the order of cancellation as passed by the licensing authority only on one ground. He has held that even if the petitioner had to go to receive foodgrains or take delivery of foodgrains from FCI as per allotment, he ought to have made alternative arrangements to see that the shop was open and failure to make alternative arrangements was dereliction of obligation under the licence. Mr Ojha further submits that from the aforesaid, it is apparent that the allegation at best is that for one day the shop of the petitioner was

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.2403 of 2013 (3) dt.14-11-2013

¶13

¶14

found closed though there is bona fide explanation thereof. He submits that in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Turant Lal Paswan –Versus- State of Bihar & Others since reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 583 , it is not sufficient for the extreme punishment of cancellation of licence as cancellation means cessation of all relationships depriving petitioner of his livelihood. Having considered the writ petition, in my view, the writ petition must succeed on this ground alone.

¶15

Division Bench has held thus in paragraph 4 of the

¶16

judgment :

¶17

“4. We find that admittedly the petitioner did close the shop on the particular day. Though, the action of keeping the shop closed on one particular day was in breach of the terms and conditions of the licence and may not be justified, was not such grave violation that would entail cancellation of licence.”

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed.

¶19

The order of the licensing authority and the appellate authority as contained in Annexures 6 and 1 respectively are quashed. The consequence would be that the petitioner’s licence would be restored forthwith.

¶20

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)

¶21

M.E.H. /-

Phuldeo Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phuldeo Rai 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedar Nath Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Deonandan Pd. Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Ram Sewak Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Zainuddin Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Basant Singh Vs The Bihar State Election Commission and Ors.