Quashed

Smt.tara Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC12 Jan 2016CWJC/13358/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed an order directing the removal of the petitioner's name from a village voter list to resolve a petrol pump dealership priority dispute. The court held that the District Magistrate failed to grant a post-report hearing and acted based on outdated voter list facts.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the District Magistrate is quashed and the matter is remitted for a fresh order after hearing.

Smt.tara Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13358 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Smt. Tara Devi W/O Sri Shree Ram Sah @ Ram Prasad Sah Permanent R/O Village- Kachora, Panchayat- Kursel, Block, P.O. & P.S.- Kadwa And District- Katihar (Pin-855114) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Katihar 3. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Katihar 4. The Senior Deputy Collector, Katihar, District- Katihar 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar, District- Katihar 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, District- Katihar 7. The Block Development Officer, Kadwa, District- Katihar 8. The Circle Officer, Kadwa, District- Katihar 9. Smt. Archana Devi W/O Sri Kishore Kumar Gupta R/O Village- Hasona Kantia, P.S.- Kadwa, P.O.- Sonaili And District- Katihar 10. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through the State Coordinator, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R. K. Agrawal Mr. Shive Kumar Mr. Anupa Nand Jha For the State Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath AAG-3 For respondent no.9 Mr. Abbas Haider For the BPCL Mr. Madhuresh Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 5 12-01-2016 Heard Mr. Agrawal for the petitioner, Mr. Madhuresh Prasad for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘the Corporation’), counsel for the State as well as Mr. Haider for respondent no.9. The order impugned has been passed by the District Magistrate, Katihar in Misc. Case No.67/11-12 (Annexure-1)

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.13358 of 2012 (5) dt.12-01-2016

¶5

2/5

¶6

whereby he directed as under:-

¶7

**vr% vkosfndk ds vkosnu i= dks vLohd`r djrs gq, iz[k a M fodkl inkf/kdkjh dnok dks funsZ”k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkosfndk Jherh rkjk nsoh ,o a muds ifr Jh jke lkg dk uke dqjlsy i a pk;r ds dpkSM+k xk ¡ o ds ernkrk lwph ls fu;ekuwlkj gVkuk lqfuf”pr djs a A Jherh rkjk nsoh ,o a muds ifr dk uke d a fV;k i a pk;r ds ernkrk lwph ,o a ,0ih0,y0 lwph es a iwoZor~ jgsxkA

¶8

ys[kk a fdr ,o a l a ”kksf/kr g0 vLi’V@& g0 vLi’V@& 05 twu 12 05 twu 12 ftyk inkf/kdkjh dfVgkjA ftyk inkf/kdkjh dfVgkjA**

¶9

The relevant facts, in brief, may be noticed at the outset. The petitioner as well as respondent no.9 applied pursuant to the advertisement put up by the respondent-Corporation for dealership of petrol pump outlet. The Corporation evaluated the papers and selected the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.9 made a complaint that the petitioner is not the resident of village Kachora. She was in fact the resident of village Kantia. Both the villages, however, fall within Kadwa Block in the district of Katihar. The District Magistrate, by an order dated 05.07.2009, cancelled the residential certificate of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, a writ petition being CWJC No. 16453 of 2011 was filed. This Court, by a proceeding dated 05.12.2011 (Annexure-11), quashed the said communication dated 05.07.2009 and directed for re-hearing of the matter in presence of the petitioner granting her opportunity of hearing. In this factual background, the

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.13358 of 2012 (5) dt.12-01-2016

¶11

3/5

¶12

petitioner approached the Collector which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 67/11-12 on the file of the Collector. The Collector after hearing the parties, constituted a Committee. The Committee submitted the report. Without further giving any opportunity of hearing in the light or the finding of the Committee the respondent District Magistrate disposed of the proceeding in the manner noticed above.

¶13

Mr. Agarwal submits with reference to the statements made in paragraph 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit (at page 238 of the brief) that earlier to approaching the Collector the petitioner and her other family members had applied for removal/deletion of their names from the voter list of village Kantia(Shayamagarh Hat). It has been stated that the name of the petitioner as well as her husband have already been struck off from the voters’ list of village Kantia(Shayamagarh Hat).

¶14

On hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Mr. Haider for respondent no.9, what appears to this Court is that selection of the petitioner as retail outlet dealer of the petrol pump is not in dispute. Mr. Agarwal has stated that the Corporation has already issued the LOI in favour of the petitioner which has not been denied by Mr. Haider.

¶15

It is stated by the petitioner that the order passed by the

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.13358 of 2012 (5) dt.12-01-2016

¶17

4/5

¶18

District Magistrate is bad in law as, in all fairness, the District Magistrate ought to have granted opportunity of hearing after submission of the report and providing her a copy thereof. The Collector, in such circumstances, failed to appreciate that the names of the petitioner and her other family members in the voters’ list of village Kantia(Shayamagarh Hat) have already been removed on an application filed in this behalf. He however states that the names of the petitioner and her other family members till date continue in the voters’ list of village Kachora.

¶19

Counsel for the State on the other hand, submits that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as would appear from the order itself.

¶20

Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that the District Magistrate while disposing of the proceeding found that the name of the petitioner appears in the voters’ list of the two places/villages. Considering the report showing the petitioner as the resident of village Kantia(Shayamagarh Hat) where her name figured in the voters’ list a direction was issued for deletion /removal of her name from the voters’ list of village Kachora. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that on an application filed by the petitioner her name has been removed/deleted from

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.13358 of 2012 (5) dt.12-01-2016

¶22

5/5

¶23

the voters’ list of village Kantia(Shayamagarh Hat). This fact was not before the District Magistrate when the order was passed. It further appears that an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after making available to her the copy of the report was not granted by the respondent-District Magistrate.

¶24

Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am persuaded to allow this writ application. The order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the District Magistrate is quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate for passing an appropriate order afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to produce this order before the District Magistrate within four weeks enabling him to proceed afresh.

¶25

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶26

HR/-

¶27

Smt.tara Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.tara 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihar Asainik Seva Swabalambi Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs The Chairman Cum M.d.d. Bank Of India and Ors.

Most. Guljari Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs He Bihar Human Right Commission and Ors.

Indian Bank Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Satya Narain Gadodiya @ Satya Vs Pawan Kumar Gadodiya and Ors.