Allowed

Hardev Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 May 2017CWJC/1387/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a Fair Price Shop license. The court held that the licensing authority violated natural justice by failing to serve the inquiry report to the petitioner before ordering cancellation, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.12.2016 cancelling the license was set aside and the matter was remanded to give a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.

Hardev Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1387 of 2017

¶3

=========================================================== Hardev Thakur, S/o Late Nageshwar Thakur, Resident of Mahmadpur, PanchayatHarichanda, P.S.-Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food & Consumer Protection, Government of BIhar, Patna.

¶7

The Collector, Muzaffarpur.

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer, (West) Muzaffarpur.

¶9

The Block Supply Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4

¶12

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 15-05-2017

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for

¶14

the State.

¶15

In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order contained in Memo No. 3437/Aa dated 28.12.2016 whereby and whereunder the license for running a Fair Price Shop has been cancelled.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a grievance that an inspection was conducted under the leadership of Additional Sub Election Officer, (West) Muzaffarpur, Block Supply Officer, Sariya and Block Supply Officer, Paroo and found irregularities in running the PDS shop, whereupon, a show-cause was issued to the

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.1387 of 2017 dt.15-05-2017

¶18

¶19

petitioner vide Memo No. 3296 dated 25.11.2016, wherein, altogether five charges have been mentioned and the petitioner was called to file reply. In reply, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that the enquiry report was not served upon him which is not in dispute and ultimately the S.D.O., (West) Muzaffarpur has passed the order thereby cancelled the licence.

¶20

A limited grievance has been raised in this writ application that the basis for issuance of show-cause is the enquiry report, whereupon, the show-cause was served upon the petitioner and enquiry report was never handed over to the petitioner in that way, the S.D.O., (West) Muzaffarpur has failed to observe the natural justice as it was the bounden duty of the S.D.O. before passing any order, he should have at least served the copy of the enquiry report and only, thereafter, the adverse order could have been passed. It is well known principle of law that before passing any order, the enquiry report should be served upon the petitioner. As it appears that three persons have visited the shop of the petitioner who have reported certain irregularities in running the PDS shop which was the basis for issuance of show-cause. In that circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the S.D.O., (West), Muzaffarpur to serve the copy of the enquiry report along with the show-cause but, that has not been done.

¶21

In that view of the matter, the order as contained in Memo

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.1387 of 2017 dt.15-05-2017

¶23

¶24

No. 3437/Aa dated 28.12.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to give a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner who, if advised, may file additional explanation and the S.D.O., (West), Muzaffarpur, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, will pass order in accordance with law.

¶25

This application is, accordingly, allowed to the aforementioned extent.

¶26

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶27

Rishi/-

¶28

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAVDATE	NA
UploadingDate	25.05.2017
Transmission Date	NA

Hardev Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardev Thakur 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

Kum Kum Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Upendra Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s U a L Bihaar Vs The North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Mithilesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sita Devi and Ors.

Sudha Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.