Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 568 (PAT)

Anand Jha v. State Of Bihar

2009-04-09

J.B.KOSHY, RAVI RANJAN

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. The writ petitioenr-appellant was holder of a licence for running a P.D.S. shop in Narendrapur Gram Panchayat of Laukahi Block, Phulparas Sub-Division, Madhubani. On 18.6.2008, in course of surprise inspection of the shop of the writ petitioner-appellant by the respondent authorities, certain irregularities were found for which a show cause notice was issued. Upon submisssion of the reply by the writ petitioner-appellant, the licensing authority, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phuiparas, cancelled the licence of the writ petitioner- appellant, which was challenged before the Collector, Madhubani, the appellate authority. The appeal also stood rejected and the order passed by the licensing authority cancelling the licence of the writ petitioner- appellant was affirmed. 3. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged by the writ petitioner-appellant by filing a writ petition, being CWJC No. 2049/ 2009, which too has been dismissed by the order dated 11.2.2009 and which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. It has been urged on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant that the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities in a most casual and mechanical manner without application of mind as only certain irregularities were found. Contention is that since there were no allegations against the writ petitioner-appellant that he was either involved in blackmarketing of the P.D.S. commodities or had illegally siphoned off the materials supplied under Public Distribution System, the orders impugned ought to have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We do not find any force in the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant. This is not the case of the writ petitioner-appellant that there has been any procedural flaw in passing the impugned orders either by the licensing authority or by the appellate authority. The writ petitioner-appellant was served with a show cause notice and was granted opportunity to defend himself and thereafter the impugned orders were passed. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that the irregularities found were serious in nature and the explanation given by the writ petitioner-appellant was not sufficient to shake the judicial conscience. It has further been observed that the writ petitioner-appellant had only tried to explain the aforesaid irregularities by assigning certain reasons which led to the same. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that the irregularities found were serious in nature and the explanation given by the writ petitioner-appellant was not sufficient to shake the judicial conscience. It has further been observed that the writ petitioner-appellant had only tried to explain the aforesaid irregularities by assigning certain reasons which led to the same. The appellate authority had passed the impugned order after complete reappraisal of the materials on record and has recorded the finding that there were glaring discrepancies in the P.D.S. shop of the writ petitioner-appellant. On consideration of the aforesaid, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that nothing further remains in the matter to be adjudicated afresh by this Court on the merits of the charge. 6. This, being intra court appeal, and since the writ petitioner-appellant failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that no interference by this Court is warranted. 7. As a result, this appeal fails and stands dismissed.