Allowed

Bindeshwari Tanti v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Dec 2024CWJC/12007/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order cancelling the petitioner's P.D.S. Shop license. The court held that the show-cause notice was invalid as it failed to explicitly mention the proposal for cancellation as required under Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22/12/2023 cancelling the license is set aside, and the matter is remanded to issue a fresh show-cause notice complying with Rule 27(ii).

Bindeshwari Tanti Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12007 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Bindeshwari Tanti Son of Ramshwarup Tanti, Resident of Village- Kalgiganj, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur.

¶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, Bhagalpur.

¶8

¶9

The Additional District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

¶10

The Licensing Authority-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Kahalgaon, DistrictBhagalpur.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Labh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 11-12-2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

2 . This writ petition has been filed for seeking the

¶15

following relief(s)

¶16

“A certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Licensing Authoritycum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Kahalgaon and issued vide Memo No. 5296 dated 22/12/2023 whereby and where under license of the petitioner’s P.D.S. Shop bearing license No. 85/16 has been cancelled with immediate effect contained in Annexure-1.

¶17

B. A mandamus commanding the Respondents to restore the petitioner’s license and to make allotment for the same as before.

¶18

C. Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may be found entitled in the fact and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him.”

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.12007 of 2024(3) dt.11-12-2024 2/4

¶20

3 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in the Show Cause Notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer there is no proposal for cancellation of the license. Learned counsel has stated that non-mentioning of the proposal for cancelling his license is contrary to the provisions of order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order, 2016’).

¶21

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the full Bench passed in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases dated 26.09.2023 to buttress his contention that non-mentioning of the proposed action in the show-cause notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.

¶22

5. Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and matter remanded back to the authorities concerned for issuing a fresh show-cause notice in terms of order 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and thereafter take necessary action.

¶23

6 . Per contra , the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.12007 of 2024(3) dt.11-12-2024 3/4

¶25

maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has the remedy to file an appeal under the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶26

7 . This Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021

¶27

and analogous cases has held as under:

¶28

“19. Accordingly, we answer the reference as under:-

¶29

It is mandatory for a licensing authority issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a license to mention that there is a proposal for cancellation of his license, failing which such notice cannot be treated to be a valid notice of giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee to state his case under order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order. ”

¶30

8 . A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal that there is any proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the same has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.

¶31

9 . Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court, the present CWJC is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kahalgoan dated 22/12/2023 is set aside. The matter is

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.12007 of 2024(3) dt.11-12-2024 4/4

¶33

remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer for issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and call for his explanation by giving him reasonable time.

¶34

10 . On such show-cause notice being served, the petitioner shall file his explanation within the stipulated time. On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶35

11. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶36

12 . With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶37

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶38

Ayush/-

¶39

Bindeshwari Tanti v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeshwari Tanti 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaqeub Kuraishi @ Yakub Kuraishi Vs The State of Bihar

Shailendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

M/S Bajrang Enterprises Vs The State of Bihar

Kanti Kunwar Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Giri Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Badrul Hussain Vs The State of Bihar