Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 884 (PAT)

Kumar Sagar Dhwaj Ratna v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-27

S.K.KATRIAR

body2005
Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal for the petitioner, and Mr. Pumendu Singh, learned junior counsel to standing counsel No. 4. 2. Four petitioners have joined together raising disjointed causes of action with respect to cancellation of their separate and distinct licenses for Public Distribution System. The office has completely failed to report this aspect of the matter. This appears to be a purposive act on the part of the office and is happening repeatedly in large number of cases. Office does not point out the defect in a situation where different writ petitions ought to have been filed by the petitioners. Learned Registrar General is hereby directed to examine the matter and submit his report before Hon ble the Chief Justice. 3. Law is well settled that one writ petition is maintainable for one cause of action and the consequential reliefs in the present case, the four petitioners were granted different licenses for running shops of Public Distribution System giving rise to different order of the learned first authority and the learned appellate authority. Such failure on the part of the office to record this defect is coming up in such large numbers and I was constrained to record my detailed order dated 20.4.2005 in CWJC No. 1681 of 2005, Ajeet Kumar and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar reported in 2005 (4) PLJR 769 . Of course, the same was passed after the present writ petition has been instituted. The learned Registrar General shall take this into account while submitting the report. 4. Four petitioners have joined this writ petition challenging different orders passed by the authorities, whereby their licenses for shops of Public Distribution System have been cancelled. It appears to me that complaints were received against the four petitioners which led to an enquiry, on the basis of which the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya, passed orders dated 12.6.2003{Annexure-2), whereby the licenses of the petitioners were cancelled. The petitioners preferred appeal before the learned Collector of the district of Gaya who dismissed the appeals separately preferred by the petitioners, vide orders dated 26.7.2003 marked Annexure-1 series. The petitioners raise a grievance before this Court that the learned authorities have cancelled the license, and the appeals have been dismissed, without proper application of the mind, and without assigning reasons. 5. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and opposed the writ petition. 6. The petitioners raise a grievance before this Court that the learned authorities have cancelled the license, and the appeals have been dismissed, without proper application of the mind, and without assigning reasons. 5. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and opposed the writ petition. 6. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The learned Sub- Divisional Officer has recorded as followed in the impugned order :- ************** LOCAL LANGUEGE ************** 7 The appeal was dismissed on these two grounds. It thus appears to me that the respondent authorities have assigned valid reasons in support of their orders. I am convinced that the impugned orders have been passed and the licenses have been cancelled, for valid reasons. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.