Rajendra Prasad Gupta @ Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1852 of 2022

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

Mostt. Saraswati Kuer @ Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Dhanushdhari Singh, R/o Village-Daftarpur, P.O. and P.S.-Doriganj, Panchayat-Bhairopur Nizamat, District-Saran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

¶7

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra.

¶8

The Block Supply Officer, Sadar, Chapra.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (SC 4) ======================================================

¶10

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

¶11

4 26-11-2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶12

2 . This writ petition has been filed for seeking the

¶13

following relief(s)

¶14

“ i. For setting aside the order dated 16.09.2021 issued vide Memo No. 1019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Sadar, Chapra, (Respondent No.2), whereby the license of the petitioner, bearing Licence No. 50/2016. has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner, that the petitioner has committed irregularities in distribution of food items and in running the PDS shop, which is a violation of relevant provisions of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Further ground of cancellation is that the petitioner has not given any concrete evidence or proof so that she could be exonerated and that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory and acceptable.

¶15

ii For setting aside the order issued vide Memo No. 1019 dated 16.09.2021 on the

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.1852 of 2022(4) dt.26-11-2024 2/5

¶17

ground that the order of cancellation is violative of principles of natural since the copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and the petitioner was never confronted with the same with an opportunity of being heard or adducing evidence in that regard and on the ground that the order of cancellation is in gross violation of Clause 27 (ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016, since there is no such proposal in the show cause notice as to why licence be not cancelled and as such the matter is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision Ram Bachan Ram Vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported 2018 (4) PLJR 516:

¶18

iii. For directing the respondent authorities to restore the licence of the petitioner forthwith.”

¶19

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’).

¶20

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

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1852 of 2022(4) dt.26-11-2024 3/5

¶22

notice is bad in law and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016.

¶23

5. Learned counsel has stated that 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.

¶24

6 . 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 writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and all the authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order, 2016. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶25

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

¶26

and analogous cases has held as under:

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.1852 of 2022(4) dt.26-11-2024 4/5

¶30

notice of giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee to state his case under order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order. ”

¶31

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.

¶32

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, Sadar Chapra dated 16.09.2021 is 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

11. It is needless to mention that before passing any

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.1852 of 2022(4) dt.26-11-2024 5/5

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶39

Bhardwaj/-

¶40

U

Rajendra Prasad Gupta @ Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Gupta @ Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Arshad Khan Vs The Chairman, Bihar State Electric Board

Rajani Prakash @ Rajani Thakur Vs North Bihar Power (Holding) Distribution Company Ltd.

Radha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Mostt. Saraswati Kuer @ Saraswati Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Indian Institute of Psychometry Vs The Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat