Allowed

Rabindra Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Jul 2019CWJC/3538/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing an order cancelling a PDS shop licence. The Court held the cancellation was illegal as it was passed in haste without adequate opportunity of hearing, specifically noting the three-day show cause period was insufficient and evidence materials were not shared.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the licence was set aside. The licence was restored, and the S.D.O. was directed to proceed afresh by passing a reasoned order within three months.

Rabindra Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3538 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Rabindra Kumar Yadav, son of Damodar Prasad Yadav Resident of ward No.09,Dhuriya,Rasulpur P.S. Chausa,Madhepura

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar and Ors through the Principal Secretary,Food and Civil Supplies,Govt. of Bihar Main Secretariat,Patna

¶7

The District Magistrate Madhepura

¶8

The Sub divisional Officer Udakishunganj, Madheprara

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4) ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 03-07-2019

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking a writ in the

¶15

nature of certiorari to quash and cancel the order as contained in memo no.4006 dated 15.12.2018 issued under the signature of the licensing authority by which the licence of the petitioner of PDS shop has been cancelled.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application to submit that the licensing authority has not at all applied his judicious mind to the allegations and reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner. The licensing authority has though mentioned that the reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner contending that the allegations against him are wrong

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.3538 of 2019(2) dt.03-07-2019 2/4

¶18

and false, he came to a conclusion that the petitioner has not come forward with any evidence to negate the allegations made against him. It is contended that the petitioner had made specific statement in his reply that when the Block Supply Officer visited the premises of the petitioner, he was engaged in distribution of the food-grains, some of the beneficiaries had already been supplied and some of them were being supplied from the residence and no complaint whatsoever was made in his presence, it was incumbent upon the licensing authority to make available the inspection report and other materials to the petitioner so that he could have come out with a defence, but that was not done and the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by simply recording that the petitioner could not produce any evidence to negate the allegations.

¶19

It is further submitted that while issuing show cause notice only three days time was granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation. It is not fair and an appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply, therefore, the licensing authority could not have taken a view that the petitioner had not submitted his explanation within the given period.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State is present and submits

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.3538 of 2019(2) dt.03-07-2019 3/4

¶22

that, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the matter may be considered by the S.D.O., Udakishunganj and a reasoned order shall be passed by him.

¶23

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order has been passed in haste without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order simply says that the petitioner had not produced evidences to negate the allegations, however, it does not talk of the materials which are there in support of the allegations made against the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that giving three days time to file explanation cannot be said to be an adequate opportunity to show cause. Hence, on all these grounds, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is set aside accordingly.

¶24

The S.D.O., Udakishunganj (respondent no.3) is free to proceed afresh from the stage of the service of show cause notice. The petitioner, if so advised, may file detail reply to the same with all materials in support of his plea and thereupon the licensing authority shall proceed to consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.3538 of 2019(2) dt.03-07-2019 4/4

¶26

In the meantime, the licence of the petitioner shall

¶27

stand restored.

¶28

This writ application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶29

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶30

arvind/-

¶31

Rabindra Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Kumar Yadav 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

Dr. Lal Babu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sangita Devi Vs The Union of India

Pushpa Devi Vs The State Election Commission and Ors.

Bijay Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vivashwan Educational and Welfare Society Vs The State Bank of India Through Assistant General Manager and Ors.

Ranjana Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.