The High Court directed the State to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under the BPDS Order, 2016, and dispose of them within 180 days before tagging his consumers to another dealer.
Directed respondents to initiate proceedings under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and decide within 180 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20937 of 2021
======================================================
Naveen Kumar S/o-Ram Babu Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Near Ganjpar, Bankipur Gorakh, P.S.-Fatuha, District-Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Ms. Preety Kunwar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 21-02-2022
Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul Haque for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2020, passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Patna City, whereby the targeted consumers of the petitioner
have been tagged with another PDS Dealer, namely,
Sanjay Kumar, bearing Licence No.2/2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20937 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022 2/3
Mr. Agrawal contends that without initiating any proceeding against the petitioner, i.e., without suspending
his licence and issuing notice to him, the consumers attached to the petitioner’s shop could not have been tagged to another PDS dealer.
From the impugned order, it appears that pursuant to an FIR having been registered against the petitioner, he absconded. This was the reason for the respondent S.D.O. to tag the consumers to another PDS Dealer of the locality.
Mr. Agrawal further submits that as on date, the petitioner is on bail and, therefore, is not a fugitive. Before taking the decision of tagging the consumers of the petitioner to another PDS Dealer, the proceeding against the petitioner ought to have begun and concluded.
There is no justification for not taking any action against the petitioner in case an FIR was lodged against him under the E.C. Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20937 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022 3/3
The respondents are directed to initiate
appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and take a decision within the stipulated period of 180 days.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sub-divisional Officer was justified in tagging the petitioner's targeted consumers to another dealer without initiating proceedings against him.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naveen Kumar
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department
The District Magistrate, Patna
The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna City
The Block Supply Officer, Fatuha
Ashutosh Kumar
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
