Allowed

Yogendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC12 Jan 2016CWJC/9573/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case deals with the cancellation of a petitioner's license by the Licensing Authority. The High Court held that the order was arbitrary as it imposed a second penalty for the same charges after suspension. The court quashed the cancellation order citing procedural lapses.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.01.2012 cancelling the petitioner's license is quashed and set aside.

Yogendra Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9573 of 2015

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Yogendra Paswan, s/o Asharfi Paswan, resident of Village-Isha Chhapra, Panchayat Raj Halimpur, PS+Block-Sahebgang, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Licensing Authority, West Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Sahebgang, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶11

The Block Supply Officer, Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur.

¶12

.... .... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, AC to AAG-12

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 12-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 21.01.2012

¶16

passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, West Muzaffarpur, as contained in Annexure 6, by which, his licence no. 23010051/08 has been cancelled.

¶17

Admittedly, the petitioner’s licence, at the first instance, was suspended on 06.01.2011 (Annexure 4) and, at the same time, petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled.

¶18

Thereafter, the petitioner furnished his reply to the show-cause notice but the District Level Selection Committee on

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.9573 of 2015 (2) dt.12-01-2016

¶20

2/3

¶21

12.11.2011 has held that since the irregularities committed by the petitioner are grave, therefore, the suspension is not fit to be revoked. Subsequent thereof, the impugned order has been passed on the ground that such decision having been taken by the District Level Selection Committee, there is no other option open to the Licensing Authority than to cancel the licence.

¶22

In my view, the order impugned suffers from several fatal errors. First and the foremost being that once a decision to suspend the licence was taken by the Licensing Authority, it was not open for it to again penalize the petitioner on self same charges by cancelling his licence. In this regard, a reference is made to a decision of the Division Bench rendered in Shiv Chander Jha v. Harideo Jha and others, 2013 (2) B.L.J. P.H.C. 80.

¶23

Secondly, the provisions, as contained in Clause 7(V) which was in operation prior to the amendment brought in the year 2011, disclosed in clear terms that the period of suspension would be of 90 days only. Therefore, there was no occasion even for considering the revocation of suspension after 90 days as revocation after lapse of 90 days was automatic. It is pertinent to mention here that by amendment brought in the Control Order which was made effective from the month of June, 2011, the provision of suspension itself has been deleted.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.9573 of 2015 (2) dt.12-01-2016

¶25

3/3

¶26

Lastly, in my view, the District Level Selection Committee was not empowered and authorized to consider either the issue of revocation of suspension of licence or its cancellation as the sole authority in terms of Clause 7(II) would be the licensing authority which was required to consider the matter of suspension or cancellation of licence only after considering the reply furnished by the licencee in response to a show-cause notice issued by him. Thus, in my view, since the order impugned suffers from the aforesaid lacunae, the same cannot be sustained and as such, is quashed and set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed.

¶28

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)

¶29

rinkee/ Veena

¶30

Yogendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Paswan 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

Chand Babu @ Runna Mian Vs The State Of Bihar

Sachidanand Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vineet Mishra Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Srikant Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mrityunjay Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pintu Alam @ Sarfaraz Alam Vs The State Of Bihar