Allowed

Ram Nath Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Jun 2018CWJC/10117/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed an order cancelling a petitioner's P.D.S. shop license because the authorities failed to provide the complaint and enquiry report to the petitioner before making the decision, violating natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision after supplying the documents and providing a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 13.01.2017 and 02.06.2017 quashed; matter remanded to respondent no. 3 for fresh decision after supplying complaint and report and granting hearing; supplies restored.

Ram Nath Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.10117 of 2017 dt.28-06-2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10117 of 2017

¶4

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

¶5

Ram Nath Kumar Son of Uma Shankar Ray, resident of village - Indrewara, P.S. - Tajpur Halai, District - Samastipur.

¶6

.... .... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

¶10

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur.

¶11

The Block Supply Officer, Morwa, District - Samastipur.

¶12

.... .... Respondents

¶13

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. S. RAZA Ahmad, AAG-5

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28-06-2018

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs -

¶19

“(i) For issuance of a writin the nature of ‘Certiorari’ for setting aside the order dated 02.06.2017 passed in Licence Appeal No. 13/2017 by learned District Magistrate, Samastipur by which he has refused to interfere in the order dated 13.01.2017 as contained in memo No. 33 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastiupr whereby the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner bearing licence no. 265/2008 was cancelled..

¶20

(ii) For further to set-aside the order as contained in Memo No. 33 dated 13.01.2017 passed by the learned SubDivisional Officer, Samastiupr by which the P.D.S. Shop

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.10117 of 2017 dt.28-06-2018

¶22

licence no. 265/2008 granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

¶23

(iii) To further direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to run the P.D.S. shop as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur and District Magistrate, Samastipur is contrary to fact and law.

¶24

(C) For other necessary relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission to assail the impugned order on the ground that nor a copy of the complaint and enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and he was never confronted with the same with an opportunity of being heard or adducing evidence in that regard. A specific stand has been taken in paragraph-8 of the writ petition that the impugned order of cancellation of licence has been passed without providing a copy of the complaint and the enquiry report to the petitioner, though the same has been relied upon in the impugned order. Such infirmity could not be cured in the appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. The stand of the petitioner with regard to non-supply of the complaint and the enquiry report has not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

In the above view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that non-supply of complaint and the enquiry report to the petitioner has resulted in violation of natural justice and thus the decision making process stands vitiated. The impugned order dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure-3) and the appellate order dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure-5) are hereby quashed and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.10117 of 2017 dt.28-06-2018

¶29

Officer, Samastipur, for taking decision afresh in the matter after supplying a copy of the complaint and the enquiry report to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the respondent no. 3.

¶30

It is made clear that in case the stand of the petitioner denying receipt of the copy of the complaint and the enquiry report prior to order of cancellation being passed is found to be incorrect, the respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court for recall of this judgment.

¶31

The writ petition stands allowed as above.

¶32

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶33

Md. Ibrarul/BT

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	03.07.2018
Transmission Date	N.A.

Ram Nath Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath Kumar 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

Shankar Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sundeshwar Ray Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Goswami Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Food Corporation Of India and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Paswan @ Dharmendra Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sharda Rice Mill Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bibi Sabina Khatoon @ Sabina Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.