Allowed

Md. Nasimuddin v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Mar 2014CWJC/12369/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application filed by a PDS shop licensee aggrieved by the cancellation of his licence granted under the older 1984 regulator. The Court quashed orders denying relief based on procedural lapses regarding a Section of the newer 2001 Control Order, affording that the 2001 terms could not invalidate a pre-existing licence. A fresh licence was directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 20.12.2007 and 12.02.2008 were quashed and set aside. Respondent Licensing Authority directed to issue fresh licence under Control Order 2001 within three weeks.

Md. Nasimuddin Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12369 of 2013

¶3

	====================================================== Md. Nasimuddin Son Of Abdul Majid Resident Of Village - Sangora Gram Panchayat, Ram Nagar, P.S. Palasi, District - Araria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Collector - Cum - District Magistrate, Araria 3. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Araria District - Araria .... .... Respondent/s
	======================================================
	Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ziaul Quamar Mr. Manish Kumar For the State Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 24 Mr. Bipin Kumar A.C. to SC 24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER
2 24	-03-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
	A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶4

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Respondent Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority (Annexure-2) whereby the licence issued to the petitioner to run PDS shop vide Licence No.22P/06 was cancelled primarily on the ground that the same was issued without obtaining approval/recommendation of the District Selection Committee. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Respondent Collector vide Appeal No.105/2007-

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.12369 of 2013 (2) dt.24-03-2014

¶6

2 / 4

¶7

The appellate authority concurred with the view of the Licensing Authority and by the impugned order dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure-1) did not grant the petitioner any relief. The matter was, however, remitted to the Licensing Authority directing him to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of licence strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2001 (for short „the Control Order‟). The Control Order was made effective from 20^th February, 2007. Earlier to this the licence used to be granted as per the provisions contained in the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. The licence (Annexure-5) was issued to the petitioner on 18.09.2006 under the provisions of the Unification Order. The condition which was subsequently imposed/contemplated by 2001 Order for grant of such licence, therefore, cannot be a ground for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner.

¶8

It is contended with reference to the few order(s) passed by this Court and contained in Annexures-7 and 9 that similar view has been taken by this Court in identical/similar case. One of the orders passed by the writ court in CWJC No.14525 of 20087 in case of Ravi Shankar Mishra vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Annexure-7) was unsuccessfully appealed against by the State

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.12369 of 2013 (2) dt.24-03-2014

¶10

3 / 4

¶11

respondents vide LPA No. 292 of 2013(The State of Bihar vs. Ravi Shankar Mishra) as contained in Annexure-8. It has thus been contended that the view expressed by the writ Court in identical matter has been affirmed by the writ appellate court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the State Government vide order dated 31.08.2006 addressed to the Divisional Commissioner(s)/District Magistrate(s) had directed for issuance of licence to run PDS shop only after getting recommendation/approval of the District Selection Committee. However, it has not been denied by the respondents that this provision of obtaining approval/recommendation by the District Selection Committee has been for the first time incorporated in 2001 Order which was admittedly made effective from 20.02.2007. The said contention of the respondents will also not hold much water since this Court considered the said submission of the respondents and passed the order dated 08.03.2013 in CWJC No. 22216 of 2011, relevant part/portion whereof is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶13

“So far Annexure A and B which have been appended with the counter affidavit are concerned, they appear to be letters written by the State Government to the Divisional Commissioners and the District Magistrates but, the same having been issued for issuance of licence for running Public Distribution System shops in the year 2003 and learned

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.12369 of 2013 (2) dt.24-03-2014

¶15

4 / 4

¶16

counsel for the State failed to demonstrate or point out any specific provision, prior to enforcement of the 2001 Control Order, for grant of licence for running P.D.S. shop on the terms contained in Annexure A and B, the direction contained therein would be of no value. It is also not the case of the State that the petitioners had violated the terms and conditions of their respective agreements. Accordingly, aforesaid limb of argument on behalf of the State is noted only to be rejected.”

¶17

Regard being had to above this Court is persuaded to allow this application. Accordingly, the orders contained in annexure-2 as well as annexure-1 passed by the Licensing Authority and the appellate authority respectively are quashed and set aside. The respondent Licensing Authority is directed to issue fresh licence under the Control Order 2001 in Form-2 after deposit of requisite fee, if any, by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶18

No order as to cost(s).

¶19

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶20

HR/-

Md. Nasimuddin v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nasimuddin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Heera Lal Sangahi Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Balak Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Smt. Santosh Murarka Vs The Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Babu Saheb Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.