Allowed¶44

Suman Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Nov 2024CWJC/9347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CWJC No.9347 of 2024, decided 12-11-2024 by A. Abhishek Reddy, J (oral order): Suman Devi v. State of Bihar & others — writ petition allowed; PDS license cancellation (Memo No. 403/Aa dated 03.05.2024) set aside because the show-cause notice lacked any proposal for cancellation, contrary to Order/Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016; matter remanded for fresh notice, hearing and reasoned order per Full Bench ruling in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 (26.09.2023).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: impugned cancellation order dated 03.05.2024 set aside; matter remanded to the Sub-divisional Officer, Danapur, for a fresh show-cause notice complying with Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016, hearing, and a reasoned order, preferably within eight weeks. ¶44

Suman Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the show-cause notice issued under Order 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, without mentioning any proposal for cancellation of the petitioner's PDS license, is bad in law and renders the consequential cancellation unsustainable. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

A perusal of the show-cause notice reveals no proposal of the action sought to be taken against the petitioner; the notice is therefore bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily be set aside.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 03.05.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Officer for issuing a fresh show-cause notice strictly in compliance with Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 and calling for the petitioner's explanation within a reasonable time.

¶41

Key takeaways

On receipt of the petitioner's explanation, the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, duly taking the explanation into consideration.ratio¶42
Before passing any orders the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing, and the entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, with any order passed being communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Distribution System licence cancellation — validity of show-cause notice under Order/Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Sub-Division Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Danapur, cancelled the petitioner's PDS License No. 16/19 by Memo No. 403/Aa dated 03.05.2024 pursuant to a show-cause notice that did not mention any proposal for cancellation. Applying the Full Bench ruling of this Court in CWJC No.21202 of 2021 and analogous cases (dated 26.09.2023) that a notice under Order 27(ii) must mention the proposal for cancellation, the Court held the notice bad, illegal and contrary to Rule 27(ii), set aside the cancellation order dated 03.05.2024, and remanded the matter for a fresh show-cause notice, an opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned order, the exercise to be completed preferably within eight weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9347 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Suman Devi W/o Sandip Kumar, Resident of Near Vastu Vihar, Khagri Road, Panchshil Nagar, P.S.- 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, Dist.- Patna.

¶9

The Sub-Divisonal Welfare Officer, Danapur, Dist.- Patna.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Danapur, Dist.- Patna.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birju Prasad, Government Pleader (13) : Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to GP13 : Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, AC to GP13

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

3 12-11-2024 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. 403/Aa, dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Learned Sub-Division Officer-cum-Licensing authority Danapur (Patna) by which he has cancelled the PDS license of the petitioner being License No. 16/19 on the basis of notice where is no stipulation of proposed cancellation and that too by a cryptic and non-speaking order.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.9347 of 2024(3) dt.12-11-2024 2/4

¶25

16/2019.

¶26

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

¶27

3 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶28

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 her 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’).

¶29

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.

¶30

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 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

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.9347 of 2024(3) dt.12-11-2024 3/4

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

and analogous cases has held as under:

¶36

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

¶37

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. ”

¶38

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.

¶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 passed by the Sub-Divisional

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.9347 of 2024(3) dt.12-11-2024 4/4

¶41

Officer, Danapur dated 03.05.2024 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 her explanation by giving her reasonable time.

¶42

10 . On such show-cause notice being served, the petitioner shall file her 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.

¶43

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 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 allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶45

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)

¶46

Ayush/-

¶47

Suman Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Devi 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

Rekha Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

Dinesh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Mahto @ Surendra Prasad Suman Vs The State of Bihar

Phurti Lal Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Saw Vs The State of Bihar