Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 314 (PAT)

Sanatan Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-06

R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment 1. This order shall dispose of both these petitions. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order 3.11.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Manjhaul cancelling the licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner(s), have come to this court, inter alia, submitting that the order passed by the S.D.O., Manjhaul contained in Annexure-1 runs contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government and violates the reservation policy. In support of his contention he placed strong reliance on a judgment of this Court in the matter of Rudra Kant Jha V/s. State of Bihar [ 2001 (1) PLJR 792 ]. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that against the cancellation of the licence/agreement the aggrieved party has a right to prefer an appeal and take up the matter in a revision and as the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy available to them, this Court should not interfere. On the merits, however, he is unable to controvert the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners nor was in a position to say that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not hold the field even today. So far as the preliminary objection is concerned, it is true that ordinarily the High Court would not interfere in a matter where alternative efficacious remedy is available to an aggrieved party but the said rule is not of universal application. It is the restraint imposed by the High Court on itself. The rule is not absolute. The High Court can always interfere in a matter even where the alternative remedy is available, if the High Court finds that the action taken by the authority runs contrary to the principles of natural justice, is per se bad, it violates the policies or runs contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. 5. In the present matter the grievance of the petitioners is that in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government 24% shops are to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Sched uled Tribes but misinterpreting the circulars/ earlier orders of the State Government the S.D.Os. 5. In the present matter the grievance of the petitioners is that in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government 24% shops are to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Sched uled Tribes but misinterpreting the circulars/ earlier orders of the State Government the S.D.Os. are cancelling the shops without even looking into the fact that the shops which have already been allotted in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories allottees are more than 24% In ratio. 6. In the matter of Rudra Kant Jha (supra) this Court has observed that if the reservation is above 24% then the same would not be violative but to maintain higher percentage of the said ratio of allotment the shops allotted to the general category people cannot be cancelled. 7. As the orders passed by the S.D.O. runs in the teeth of the earlier judgment of this Court and also runs contrary to the reservation policy (as alleged) I am of the opinion that this Court must interfere in this matter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of 47 fair price shops 17 have already been allotted to the Scheduled Tribes Scheduled Castes candidates and only 12 shops have been allotted to the general category people. According to him the allotment of the shops to the general category is admittedly 25 percent while the allotment in favour of SC ST Category is almost about 37 percent, therefore, the shops allotted to the petitioners could not be cancelled. 9. Be that as it may, without entering into the controversy relating to ratio/percentage of the reservation I set aside the order passed by the S.D.O./licensing authority and remit the matter back to him to re-decide the matter in accordance with the police of the State Government and the directions made under the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rudra Kant Jha (supra). The authority shall be obliged to see that what is the number of the shops and to what extent the reservation can be made and whether the shops allotted in favour of the general category people can be cancelled or not. The petitioners shall appear before the said licensing authority on 3.4.2002. After giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners the said authority shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations aforesaid. 10. The petitioners shall appear before the said licensing authority on 3.4.2002. After giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners the said authority shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations aforesaid. 10. These petitions are allowed. 11. Let a copy of this order be kept in the records of C.W.J.C. No. 15330 of 2001.