Allowed

Vijay Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Jun 2018CWJC/10880/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Patna High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders cancelling the petitioner's issue license. The court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer acted in haste without ensuring notice service and allowed less than reasonable time to respond. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh decision after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.05.2016 and 06.04.2018 set aside; matter remanded to Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh decision with reasonable opportunity; supplies to petitioner restored.

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10880 of 2018

¶3

=========================================================== Vijay Kumar Gupta son of Vishwanath Sah 248 Ward No. 7 Mehanal Kala P.S. Belsandi, District- West Champaran.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut range, Muzaffarpur.

¶7

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut range, Muzaffarpur.

¶8

The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran.

¶10

The District Supply Officer, Bettiah.

¶11

The Block Supply Officer, Sikta, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran.

¶12

.... .... Respondents

¶13

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-06-2018

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

¶17

counsel for the State.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for the following

¶19

reliefs –

¶20

“(i) For quashing the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 by which the license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

¶21

(ii) For quashing the order dated 06.04.2018 passed in Case No. CRM-54/2016-17 passed by the respondent District Magistrate by which the appeal has been dismissed.

¶22

(iii) For direction upon the respondent authorities to restore the license of the petitioner forthwith.

¶23

(iv) Any other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.10880 of 2018 dt.25-06-2018

¶25

¶26

and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an insufficient opportunity of three days was granted for filing show cause and the impugned order has been passed as the petitioner was unable to file the show cause within the stipulated time. In fact, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the show cause notice had been served on the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Fulpati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, 2013(1) PLJR 718 , wherein it has been observed as follows –

¶28

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not know about the notice as she was ill during the period. Hence, she did not file show cause and in her absence the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order cancelling her licence. He also submits that in appeal petitioner had brought this issue as ground no. (B) in the memo of appeal but the Collector has not considered the same and has brushed aside the ground taken by the petitioner and held that the ground of illness taken by the petitioner appears to be ‘Post Thought’. He submits that illness or no illness, only three days time was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was very short, and thereafter, he passed final orders within one week, without ensuring that notice was served on her.

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.10880 of 2018 dt.25-06-2018

¶31

¶32

correct. From the impugned order of the SubDivisional Officer also it does not appear that he has take care to ascertain service of notice was affected on the petitioner or not. The fact that after issue of notice on 16th of November, 2011 he passed final orders on 22nd of November, 2011 without mentioning in his order that the notice had been served on the petitioner, shows that he acted in hot haste.”

¶33

In the above view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure-3) and the appellate order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure-4) are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran (respondent no. 4) to take a fresh decision in the matter after grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the respondent no. 4.

¶34

The writ petition stands allowed as above.

¶35

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶36

Md. Ibrarul/Chandran

¶37

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	02.07.2018
Transmission Date	N.A.

Vijay Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Gupta 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

India Power Corporation Bodhgaya Ltd. and Ors. Vs South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Pooanm Devi Vs Senior Regional Manager,Lpg Ar

Vikramshila Transformers Pvt.L Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Kusho Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Kishore Kumar Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.