Allowed

Aanand Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Mar 2021CWJC/8321/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed a licence cancellation order for failing to record cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioner's explanation, holding it arbitrary and violative of natural justice, and remitted the matter back. The relief granted was to pass a fresh order within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remitted to Licensing Authority to pass fresh order within 30 days giving cogent reasons.

Aanand Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8321 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Aanand Kumar, Gender-Male, Aged about 32 years, Son of Ramchandra Nayak, Resident of Village- Radhi, P.S.- Jale, District- Darbhanga

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga.

¶8

The Licensing Authority-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga .

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG – 5 ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

6 15-03-2021 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned A.C. to A.A.G. -5 for the State.

¶14

The present writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 05.05.2020 issued vide Memo No. 242 by the Licensing Authority -cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga whereby the P.D.S. license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

¶15

The brief facts giving rise to the present writ application is that the petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer having license no. 30 of 2016. The show cause bearing memo no. 162 dated 09.04.2020 was served upon him alleging therein that the shop of the petitioner was found closed on the date of inspection i.e. 07.04.2020 and further that the petitioner did not produce relevant registers during the course of inspection. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause vide Annexure- “3” to the

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.8321 of 2020(6) dt.15-03-2021 2/4

¶17

writ petition. However, the licensing authority being not satisfied with the said reply issued second show-cause vide Memo No. 203 dated 20.04.2020 (Annexure – “4” to the writ petition) stating therein that your earlier reply to the show cause was found unsatisfactory and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh reply within two days. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause giving the reasons for non production of relevant registers at the time of inspection.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason inasmuch as the same does not show any consideration on the issues raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause and it is a one liner reason, which is as follows:-

¶19

“ ... fo Ø srk dk f}rh; Li’Vhdj.k izkIr gqvk] ftlds voyksduksijkUr larks’ktud ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k vLohd`r fd;k tkrk g S lkFk gh yf{;r lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k 2016 dh dafMdk 14 ¼VIII½] 15 ¼I½ ,oa vuqKk 'krksZa ds mYya?ku ds vkyksd esa Jh vkuUn dqekj] tu forj.k iz.kkyh foØsrk iapk;r jk<h if'peh iz[kaM & tkys ftyk njHkaxk ds vuqKfIr la[;k 30 @ 2016 dks jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA ”

¶20

The impugned order reflects that the licensing

¶21

authority has passed the order without any reason whatsoever.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.8321 of 2020(6) dt.15-03-2021 3/4

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the counter affidavit submits that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 32 of the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 and the petitioner may be relegated before the appellate authority. Learned counsel further submits that the licensing authority has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply and after due consideration of the same the impugned order has been passed.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Licensing Authority-cum- Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga i.e. respondent no.– 3 has given one liner reason that the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and has cancelled the license of the petitioner visiting him with civil and evil consequences. I find that the impugned order does not reflect that the licensing authority has given cogent reason whatsoever before arriving at the conclusion of cancellation of the P.D.S. license of the petitioner. In this connection a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496 may be

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.8321 of 2020(6) dt.15-03-2021 4/4

¶26

relied upon. It is now settled and the courts have repeatedly held that the orders having civil and evil consequences without any consideration or without any reason whatsoever should not be passed by the administrative authorities.

¶27

In the conclusion, I find that the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 is violative of the principle of natural justice, arbitrary and unsustainable and is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 3 / Licensing Authority -cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving cogent reason and after due consideration of the explanation / reply filed by the petitioner. The fresh order must be passed by the respondent no. 3 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt / production of this order.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ application is allowed to the extent as stated above.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶30

praful/-

¶31

U T

Aanand Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aanand Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mithan Prasad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sameer Kumar Srivastava @ Sameer Srivastava Vs the State of Bihar

M/s Bhardwaj Construction Vs The State of Bihar

Pralanyankar Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Md. Shamshad Ansari @ Md. Shamsad Ansari Vs the State of Bihar