Allowed

Devendra Harijan v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 Dec 2022CWJC/18221/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the cancellation of the petitioner's food grain license. The High Court set aside the cancellation orders of the licensing and appellate authorities, holding them arbitrary. The process failed as the notice was vague, preventing the petitioner from effectively rebutting the beneficiary complaints. The case was remanded for a fresh, clear notice with reasoned decisions

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; the orders cancelling the license are set aside; the matter is remanded for a fresh notice and reasoned decision.

Devendra Harijan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18221 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

Devendra Harijan Son of Late Phodo Harijan Resident of village - Barona, P.S. Barahat, District - Banka

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food & Supply Department, Patna, Bihar

¶7

The District Magistrate, Banka

¶8

The Sub - Divisional Officer, Banka

¶9

The Block Supply officer, Belhar Prakhand, District Banka

¶10

The Block Supply officer, Barahat Block, District Banka

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Braj Nandan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶15

Date : 15-12-2022

¶16

Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior

¶17

Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4

¶18

for the State.

¶19

The licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, which order has been sustained in appeal.

¶20

Mr. Agrawal, however, contends that the

¶21

notice served upon him prior to cancellation order was so vague and general that no effective representation could have been made. In a general manner, it has been stated in the notice that the petitioner offered lesser

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.18221 of 2016 dt.15-12-2022 2/4

¶23

quantities of food-grains than the entitlement of the beneficiaries and that he charged more amount from them than what he is entitled to. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the aforesaid show-cause notice with such vague charges, the petitioner replied by rebutting the allegation by offering proof of the fact that he had distributed food-grains to the beneficiaries in right quantity and had charged the fixed price from them.

¶24

The explanation offered by the petitioner was rejected by the licensing authority on the sole ground that it is different from the complaint of the beneficiaries.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, questions the correctness of such a decision, where a decision was taken relying upon one statement against the other, but giving any reason.

¶26

Similar order has been passed by the appellate authority.

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.18221 of 2016 dt.15-12-2022 3/4

¶28

The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner has some force.

¶29

There was no wherewithal with the licensing authority to assess the veracity of the statement of the beneficiaries on the basis of which proceeding for cancellation was initiated against the petitioner. The situation would have been different if necessary details with respect to the identity of such complainant/beneficiary would have been provided in the notice for him to have effectively rebutted the charge by looking at the register and the documents maintained in the shop of the petitioner. That not having been done, the order does not appear to be on the merits of the case, but only on the assumption of the licensing authority that the beneficiaries have made correct statement and the licensee has made a wrong statement.

¶30

Such an order cannot be sustained.

¶31

For the aforenoted reason, the order passed

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.18221 of 2016 dt.15-12-2022 4/4

¶33

by the appellate authority as also the original order by the licensing authority, cancelling the licence of the petitioner, are set aside.

¶34

The matter is remitted to the licensing authority to afford fresh and clear notice to the petitioner within a period of 30 days of receipt/production of copy of this order. After giving reasonable time to the petitioner to respond to such notice within a further period of one month, a decision shall be taken within a period of 60 days thereafter, but only after adverting to the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner. The order shall contain reasons in support of the same and shall be made available to the petitioner at the earliest.

¶35

With the aforenoted direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶37

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶38

SONALI/-
AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	19.12.2022
Transmission Date	NA

Devendra Harijan v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Harijan 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

Mahaboudh Jan Swasthaya Evem Sarvangin Vikas Kendra, Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Chandra @ Guddu Baba Vs The State of Bihar

Bibha Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Niranjan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dilip Kumar Ram @ Dilip Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.