Allowed

Binod Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Oct 2024CWJC/9170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the cancellation of the petitioner's Public Distribution System (PDS) license because the impugned order was based on a notice that omitted the mandatory statement of proposed cancellation required under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings in compliance with legal requirements.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the PDS license is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice in strict compliance with Rule 27(ii) of the Control

Binod Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9170 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Binod Prasad Son of Kalicharan Prasad, Resident of Gola Road, Ganesh Ata Mill, Police Station- Danapur District - Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna.

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Officer cum-Licensing Authority, Danapur, DistrictPatna.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Danapur, District- Patna.

¶10

¶11

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Danapur, District- Patna.

¶13

The Block Supply Officer, Maner, Danapur, District- Patna.

¶14

The Block Supply Officer, Danapur, Urban Area, District- Patna.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (18) ======================================================

¶18

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

¶19

2 21-10-2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶20

2 . This writ petition has been filed for seeking the

¶21

following relief(s)

¶22

“i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 394/Aa, dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Learned SubDivision Officer-cum-Licensing authority Danapur (Patna) by which he has cancelled the PDS license of the petitioner being License No. 01/2017 on the basis of notice where is no stipulation of proposed cancellation and that too by a cryptic and non- speaking order.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.9170 of 2024(2) dt.21-10-2024 2/5

¶24

(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the license of the petitioner being License No. 01/2017.

¶25

(iii) For other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law.

¶26

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’).

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.9170 of 2024(2) dt.21-10-2024 3/5

¶30

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.

¶31

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, 20017. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶32

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

¶33

and analogous cases has held as under:

¶34

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

¶35

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. ”

¶36

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

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.9170 of 2024(2) dt.21-10-2024 4/5

¶38

has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside.

¶39

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 contained in Memo No. 394/Aa, dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Learned Sub- Division Officer-cum-Licensing authority Danapur (Patna) 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

Patna High Court CWJC No.9170 of 2024(2) dt.21-10-2024 5/5

¶43

of receipt of a copy of this order. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶44

12 . With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

¶45

allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶46

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶47

Prakash/-

¶48

Binod Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Prasad 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

Mahaboudh Jan Swasthaya Evem Sarvangin Vikas Kendra Vs The State of Bihar

Mahaboudh Jan Swasthaya Evem Sarvangin Vikas Kendra, Vs The State of Bihar

Mahaboudh Jan Swasthaya Evem Sarvangin Vikas Kendra Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Nikki Kumari Vs The State of Bihar