Allowed

Yogendra Ray v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Dec 2024CWJC/12471/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of a PDS license and dismissal of appeal. The show-cause notice lacked any proposal to cancel the license, contrary to Order 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 as held by the Full Bench. Orders set aside and matter remanded for fresh show-cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation and appellate orders set aside; matter remanded to SDO for fresh show-cause notice under Rule 27(ii) with hearing and reasoned order within eight weeks.

Yogendra Ray 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.12471 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Yogendra Ray S/o Late Dewki Ray, Resident of Village- Dostiyan, P.S. - Lakhoura, District - East Champaran, the Chairman of Barwa PACS, P.S. - Lakhoura, District - East Champaran. ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

The Collector, East Champaran at Motihari.

¶7

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Motihari, District East Champaran.

¶8

The Block Supply Officer, Motihari, District- East Champaran.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr.Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4) ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶14

4 03-12-2024 Heard the parties.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s) :

¶16

“………. for the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, directions to the respondents concerned for quashing of the order contained in memo no. 166 dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Motihari by which the PDS license of the petitioner being License No. 021100114 of 2011 ha been cancelled and further for quashing the appellate order dated 12.05.2022 passed in PDS Appeal No. 28/2020-21 by the learned Collector, Motihari by which statutory appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the licensing dated 19.02.2021 was affirmed and further be pleased to restore the supply and license of the petitioner.”

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.12471 of 2022(4) dt.03-12-2024 2/5

¶19

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’).

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the present

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.12471 of 2022(4) dt.03-12-2024 3/5

¶24

writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner having exhausted all the remedies has approached this Court by way of this present CWJC that all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. That the said finding of fact arrived by all the authorities cannot be interpreted by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶25

This Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under:

¶26

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

¶27

“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.”

¶28

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.

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.12471 of 2022(4) dt.03-12-2024 4/5

¶30

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 Appellate Authority dated 12.05.2022, as well as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari, dated 19.02.2021, are all set aside. The matter is 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.12471 of 2022(4) dt.03-12-2024 5/5

¶34

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

¶35

allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶36

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶37

Shamshad/-

¶38

Yogendra Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Ray 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

Ranjeet Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Smt. Nipun Singh Vs The Bank of India

The Secondary Delhi Public School Vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shamsh Tabrez Khan Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Ganesh Pd. and Sons (Partnership Firm) Vs The Union of India