Disposed

Mithilesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Nov 2022CWJC/15027/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court set aside orders cancelling the petitioner's license due to an unsatisfactory enquiry report. The authorities failed to accurately specify materials or explain why beneficiaries received lesser quantities at higher prices. The court directed the licensing authority to pass a fresh reasoned order within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Orders passed by licensing, appellate, and revisional authorities set aside with a direction to pass a fresh reasoned order within 60 days.

Mithilesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15027 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Mithilesh Kumar Son of Late Bankey Singh Resident of Village- Karadih, Gram Panchayat Nalanda, P.S.- Silao, District- Nalanda.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Patna.

¶7

The Divisional Commissioner Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate Nalanda.

¶9

The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Licensing Authority Rajgir, Nalanda.

¶10

¶11

The Supply Inspector Silao, Nalanda.

¶12

The Block Supply Officer Silao, Nalanda.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shivam. Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶14

Date : 11-11-2022

¶15

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh for the State.

¶16

The license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the order of the licensing authority, which order has been affirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities.

¶17

The petitioner was issued a show-cause

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.15027 of 2021 dt.11-11-2022 2/4

¶19

notice to explain as to why the display board was not maintained in accordance with the terms of license and why the beneficiaries were afforded lesser quantity of food-grains and kerosene oil but they were charged more for what was given to them.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the explanation offered by him was not carefully analysed or adverted to. It appears from the enquiry report, which has been made part of the petition, that all the beneficiaries, who are stated to have been handed over lesser quantity of food-grains and kerosene oil, have testified to their having received 20 kgs of food grains and 2 litres of kerosene oil for which the fixed price has been charged from them.

¶21

The orders passed by the authorities do not reflect as to how they have come to the conclusion that the beneficiaries were given 5 kgs less than their entitlement and were

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.15027 of 2021 dt.11-11-2022 3/4

¶23

charged more.

¶24

Though the petitioner has come up with an explanation that the accusation is false and that some of the beneficiaries may have been given lesser quantity of kerosene oil but that was not deliberate but such explanation is not worth accepting.

¶25

What we find from the enquiry report is that there is no exact description of the materials which has led the licensing authority as well as the appellate and the revisional authorities, who come to the conclusion that the beneficiaries were given lesser quantities of food-grains and kerosene oil for which they were charged more than the fixed price.

¶26

In view of such doubtful enquiry report, we are not able to sustain the orders passed by the authorities.

¶27

For the afore-noted reason, we set aside the orders passed by the licensing authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.15027 of 2021 dt.11-11-2022 4/4

¶29

and direct that a fresh order be passed by the licensing authority, giving reasons in support of the same within a period of 60 days, to be counted from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶30

With the afore-noted direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶32

SONALI/-		( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date	NA

¶33

SONALI/-

Mithilesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Munni Devi Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Thakur Vs Anil Kumar

M/s Rajkishore Saw Mill,Labhra-Panchanpur P.S. Tekari, District-Gaya a Proprietorship Firm through Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nibha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Gyanti Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sarita Devi Vs The State of Bihar