Disposed

M/s Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Jan 2016CWJC/1364/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order dated 13.12.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur, solely due to the violation of natural justice regarding lack of prior notice and opportunity to show cause to the petitioner. The court directed the removal of the seal on the manufacturing premises and allowed the petitioner to continue business.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13.12.2015 was set aside and quashed. The seal on the manufacturing premises was directed to be removed, and the petitioner was allowed to carry on business.

M/s Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1364 of 2016

¶2

====================================================== 1. M/s Riga Sugar Co. Ltd., Distillery Division, Dhanukagram, P.O Riga, District Sitamarhi through its Senior General Manager, Uday Shankar Dwivedi, son of Rishi Deo Dwivedi, resident of Mishrouli, P.O & P.S. Bhore District Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Excise & Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Excise & Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner of Excise, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Superintendent of Excise Sheohar, 6. The Superintendent of Excise, Sitamarhi. 7. The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Managing Director. 8. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Muzaffarpur. 9. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Sitamarhi. 10. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Sheohar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore (PAAG) Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, AC to PAAG For Respondent No.7 Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) 4 25-01-2016 Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar,

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.1364 of 2016 (4) dt.25-01-2016

¶5

2/3

¶6

assistant Counsel to learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. Heard also Mr. Girijesh Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.7.

¶7

In the light of decision of this Court rendered, on 14.1.2008, in CWJC No.15263 of 2007, we find and it could not be disputed, that the order, dated 13.12.2015, passed by respondent No.4, namely, the Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur, is bad in law and cannot be sustained. This is for the reason that plea of the Petitioner that no prior notice or an opportunity to show cause was afforded to him has not been controverted on behalf of the State of Bihar.

¶8

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, we set aside and quash the order, dated 13.12.2015, and leave it to the authorities of the Excise Department, Government of Bihar, to take appropriate action in accordance with law if the petitioner has, in the opinion of the respondents, acted in contravention of any order or provisions of law contained in that behalf.

¶9

Consequent upon the setting aside and quashing of

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.1364 of 2016 (4) dt.25-01-2016

¶11

3/3

¶12

the order, dated 13.12.2015, it is hereby directed that the seal shall be removed from the manufacturing premises and the petitioner shall be allowed to carry on his business and he shall not be disturbed except in accordance with law.

¶13

With the above observations and directions, this application stands disposed of.

¶14

(I.A. Ansari, ACJ)

¶15

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶16

K.C.jha/-

¶17

M/s Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. 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

Rohit Prasad and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Pinki Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Nutan Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Smt. Pramila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Shiv Jee Mahto @ Shivnath Mahto @ Shivajee Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar