Allowed

Sanjeev Ray v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Oct 2021CWJC/7887/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's P.D.S. license due to violation of natural justice as a subsequent show cause notice was never served. The matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer to serve the notice, conduct an inquiry, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 21.01.2020. Remand of the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer with a direction to serve the show cause notice dated 30.11.2019, submit an inquiry report, and pass a reason

Sanjeev Ray Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7887 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Sanjeev Ray S/o Ramakant Ray Resident of Village- Saidabad, P.S.Raghopur, District- Vaishali.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶8

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Hajipur.

¶9

The Block Supply Officer, Raghopur, Hajipur.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anujit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh (AC to SC 4)

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 04-10-2021

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

¶19

Upendra Pratap Singh, learned AC to SC 4 appearing for the State.

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.01.2020, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur, whereby and whereunder the P.D.S. license of the petitioner bearing License no. 26 of 2016 has been cancelled.

¶21

The short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though he had received the show cause notice dated 30.05.2019 and had replied to the same, however a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 would show

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2021(2) dt.04-10-2021 2/3

¶23

that the S.D.O. Hajipur had issued another show cause notice dated 30.11.2019 which was never served upon the petitioner, as has been averred in paragraphs no. 16 to 18 of the present writ petition, thus, it is submitted that on account of non service of the second show cause notice dated 30.11.2019, the petitioner has been precluded from submitting a wholesome defence, resulting in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, leading to the impugned order dated 21.02.2020, being vitiated in the eyes of law.

¶24

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State has not disputed the position, as is existing in law.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that though the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 30.05.2019, however the show cause notice dated 30.11.2019 was not served upon the petitioner, inasmuch, though such a plea has been specifically raised in the writ petition but the same has not been controverted by the State in its counter affidavit, thus the same has resulted in depriving the petitioner from submitting his wholesome defence, resulting in the impugned order dated 21.02.2020 being vitiated in the eyes of law, on account of non- compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice, hence the order dated 21.02.2020, passed by the

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2021(2) dt.04-10-2021 3/3

¶27

S.D.O. Hajipur is quashed, however the matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur with a direction to him to serve the show cause notice dated 30.11.2019 upon the petitioner, along with inquiry report and seek show cause reply of the petitioner, whereafter, a reasoned and a speaking order be passed within a period of eight weeks.

¶28

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶29

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶30

rinkee/-

¶31

Sanjeev Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kalawati Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Usha Vishwakarma Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Kutubuddin, Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary