Surya Dev Ram @ Suray Dev Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Surya Dev Ram @ Suray Dev Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: the Revisional Authority's order dated 20.07.2023, the Appellate Authority's order dated 03.12.2021, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Arwal's order dated 09.03.2020 are set aside; matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice strictly in compliance with Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016, call for the petitioner's explanation within stipulated time, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, give an opportunity of hearing before passing any order, complete the entire exercise preferably within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and communicate any order passed to the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Arwal — containing no proposal for cancellation of the licence — satisfies Order/Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and whether the orders premised on that notice can stand. +1 more

Court's answer

The show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not reveal any proposal of the action sought to be taken against him; the notice is therefore bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016, and had necessarily to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Applying the law laid down by this Court's Full Bench in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases — that a notice under Order 27(ii) must mention the proposal for cancellation of the licence, failing which it is not a valid notice giving sufficient opportunity — the Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for a fresh Rule 27(ii)-compliant show-cause notice.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public distribution system licence (P.D.S. Licence No. 34/2007) cancellation — show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Arwal carried no proposal for cancellation of the licence; per the Court's Full Bench ruling in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases (dt. 26.09.2023), applied here, a notice under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 must mention the proposed cancellation, failing which it is not a valid notice giving sufficient opportunity to the licensee. The SDO's cancellation order (09.03.2020), the District Magistrate's appellate order (Supply Appeal case No. 31/D.M/2020, dt. 03.12.2021) and the Commissioner, Magadh Division's revisional order (PDS Revision No. 49/2022, dt. 20-07-2023), affirmed up to the Secretary's dismissal (memo no. 495, dt. 25.01.2024), were all set aside; matter remanded to the SDO for a fresh Rule 27(ii)-compliant show-cause notice, explanation, hearing and reasoned order, preferably within eight weeks.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4199 of 2024

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

Surya Dev Ram @ Suray Dev Ram, S/o- Late Umesh Prasad, Resident of Village- Aslanpur, Post- Sakri Chowki, P.S.- Arwal, District- Arwal, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

The Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Patna.

The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

The District Magistrate, Arwal.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Arwal.

The District Supply Officer, Arwal.

The Block Supply Officer, Arwal.

The Supply Inspector, Arwal.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Preety Kunwar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader 06

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

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

3 23-08-2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2 . This writ petition has been filed for seeking the

following relief(s)

“That, the present writ application is being filed against the order dated 19-01-2024 passed by Learned Secretary, Food & Consumer Department, Patna, contained in memo no. 495 dated 25.01.2024, whereby he has dismissed the application of the petitioner and has affirmed the order dated 20-07-2023 passed in PDS Revision No. 49/2022 passed by Leamed Commissioner. Magadh Division, Gaya whereby the leamed Commissioner has affirmed the order of District Magistrate, Arwal, passed in Supply Appeal case No. 31/D.M/2020, dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.4199 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 2/5

03.12.2021, which was preferred against the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer -cum- Licensing Authority. Arwal. The appellant had preferred the appeal being aggrieved with the order dated 09.03.2020 contained in Memo No.of 770 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer -cum-Licensing Authority. Arwal (respondent no.5) whereby the P.D.S. License No. 34/2007 in the name of the petitioner has been canceled. The petitioner further prays for the restoration of the P.D.S. license.”

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’).

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.

5. Learned counsel has stated that in view of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4199 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 3/5

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.

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.

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

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

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. ”

8 . A perusal of the show-cause notice issued to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4199 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 4/5

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.

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 Revisional Authority dated 20.07.2023, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 03.12.2021, as well as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Arwal dated 09.03.2020 are 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.

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.

11. It is needless to mention that before passing any

Patna High Court CWJC No.4199 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 5/5

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.

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

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

Bhardwaj/-

U