Md. Mumtaz Ahmad @ Syed Mumtaz Ahmad Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar Pankaj, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

¶13

11 21-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The present Writ Petition has been filled for the

¶15

following reliefs:-

¶16

“(i) To issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order to set aside the order contained in Memo No. 175 dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure- 4) to the extent whereby Respondent No. 4 has cancelled the PDS fair price Shop License No. 18/16 issued to the Petitioner.

¶17

(ii) To issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order to set aside the cryptic show cause notice contained in Memo No. 158 dated 09.07.2021 (Annexure3) issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 4.

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.10686 of 2022(11) dt.21-01-2025 2/3

¶19

(iii) To issue consequential Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order direction directing the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 3 to 5 to immediately restore the aforesaid PDS fair price Shop with supplies, issued to the petitioner.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the solitary ground given in the show cause notice dated 09.07.2021 vide Memo No. 58 for cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner was that an First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing Paharpur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2020 had been instituted against the petitioner. Similarly, the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground of institution of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard.

¶22

Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. A perusal of the PDS. (Control) Order, 2001 read with Rule 7 of the notification in G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.02.2007 makes it clear that mere institution of a First Information Report would not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of the PDS licence. This view finds support from the decision of this Court in Umesh Ram vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 2014

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.10686 of 2022(11) dt.21-01-2025 3/3

¶24

Patna 113 as well.

¶25

In view of the above, the impugned letter dated 09.07.2021 (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed and consequently the order dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure-4) is also set aside.

¶26

Needless to say, supplies to the petitioner shall be restored without delay.

¶27

It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner is subsequently convicted in the criminal case instituted against him, thereafter, the authorities are free to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶28

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

¶29

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)

¶30

Bhardwaj/-

¶31

U

Md. Mumtaz Ahmad @ Syed Mumtaz Ahmad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mumtaz Ahmad @ Syed Mumtaz Ahmad 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

Anwesh Kumar Vs The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest

Shiv Shakti Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Bihar

Vinod Kumar Vs Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

Usha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Siddharth Suman Vs The State of Bihar

Bishan Das Vs The State of Bihar