Dismissed

Hareram Sahu v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Jan 2023CWJC/9576/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the cancellation of his license, arguing the Licensing Authority relied on an undisclosed inquiry report. The Court dismissed the writ petition as the statutory appeal remedy remained unavailed, directing the Appellate Authority to consider grounds raised and pass a reasoned order within specified timelines if an appeal is filed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed subject to direction for Appellate Authority to consider petitioner's grounds and pass reasoned order within 60 days if appeal filed within 30 days.

Hareram Sahu Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9576 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Hareram Sahu S/o Mahadev Sahu, Resident of Village-Masankhon, Bahrampur alias Masankhon, Ward No. 13, P.S. and Block-Kusheshwarsthan, District-Darbhanga, Pin Code-848213.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

Additional Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Collector, Darbhanga.

¶9

The Licensing Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga.

¶10

The District Supply Officer, Darbhanga.

¶11

The Block Supply Officer, Kusheshwarsthan, Darbhanga.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4)

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶17

Date : 17-01-2023

¶18

Heard Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the State.

¶19

The license of the petitioner has been cancelled and it aggrieves the petitioner for the reason that the opinion of the Licensing Authority is based solely on the report given by the Block Supply Officer who had conducted the inquiry and had submitted his report, pursuant to which, the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.9576 of 2022 dt.17-01-2023 2/3

¶21

petitioner had been noticed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that all the charges in the notice were replied by him with necessary supporting proof but from the manner in which the reply has been dealt with, it is apparent that only the opinion of the Block Supply Officer has been relied upon.

¶23

As an instance, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the report is based on the statements collected from many of the targeted beneficiaries, the names of whom have not been disclosed either in the inquiry report or in the opinion given by the Block Supply Officer. This makes the conclusion arrived at by the Licensing Authority to be absolutely coloured and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the inquiry report by the Block Supply Officer and his later opinion, when asked for by the Licensing Authority, has not been supplied to the petitioner.

¶25

Both these grounds do not weigh with us for

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.9576 of 2022 dt.17-01-2023 3/3

¶27

exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has not elected for the statutory remedy of appeal which is available to him.

¶28

For the aforesaid reason, we dismiss this petition but with an observation that in case an appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of 30 days, the Appellate Authority shall take into account all the grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition and pass a reasoned order within a further period of 60 days.

¶29

The order so passed shall be made available to the petitioner forthwith.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶32

Harsh/Sunil-

¶33

( Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date	N/A

Hareram Sahu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareram Sahu 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

Ashok Kumar Vs The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Maheshwar Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sarju Prasad @ Sarjy Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Sakindra Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Indrajit Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yamuna Yadav Vs The State of Bihar