Bulai @ Bulae Marandi Vs The State of Bihar

a. To quash/set-aside the order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Supply Revision No. 149/2023 by respondent no.2 (Divisional Commission Purnea, whereby and where under pleased to reject the revision affirming the order passed in supply appeal case no. 99/2022 vide order dated 25.03.2022 by respondent no.3 (The District Magistrate, Purnea), whereby and where under affirm the ex parte order issued vide memo no. 88/Baisi dated 11.01.2021 passed by respondent no.5 the Sub Divisional Officer, baisi whereby and where under pleased to cancel the PDS shop license no. 10/2016 of the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.5812 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 2/5

¶22

petitioner.

¶23

b. To restore the license no.10/2016 of the petitioner with immediate effect.

¶24

c. Any other relief(s) for which petitioner entitled under the law may be given to him.

¶25

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’).

¶26

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.

¶27

Learned counsel has stated in view of the above mentioned provisions of law and judgment relied by the

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.5812 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 3/5

¶29

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.

¶30

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. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

“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

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.5812 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 4/5

¶35

BTPDS Control Order.”

¶36

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.

¶37

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 16.12.2023 passed in Supply Revision No. 149/2023, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 25.03.2022 passed in Supply Appeal Case No. 99 of 2022 as well as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baisi, Purnea, dated 11.01.2023 in PDS Sop License No. 10 of 2016 are all set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Subdivisional 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.

¶38

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

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.5812 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 5/5

¶40

authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶44

Shamshad/-

¶45

U

Bulai @ Bulae Marandi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bulai @ Bulae Marandi 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

M/s Pvc Processor Vs The State of Bihar

Wakil Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar through Shri Robert L. Chongtu Principal Secretary

M/s Bihar Trade Towers Pvt. Ltd. earlier known as M/S Aishwarya Foundation Vs The State of Bihar through the Development Commissioner cum Chairman

Pappu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Naurangi Yadav Vs The State of Bihar