Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1202 (JHR)

Sumit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-08

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
ORDER The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, contained in Memo No.142 dated 5th June, 2010, whereby the petitioner's PDS Licence No.26 of 2005 has been cancelled on the allegation that he is an accused in Bandgaon P.S. Case No.15 of 2010. 2. According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in the said case by some interested persons and after the trial of the said case, the petitioner has been acquitted. Even after acquittal, the licensing authority has not altered the impugned order, which was passed only on the aforesaid ground. 3. Learned J.C. to S.C. (Mines), appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the petitioner's licence was cancelled, as he was an accused in the aforesaid criminal case. If the petitioner is acquitted in the said case, he should have approached the licensing authority for alteration of the impugned order and passing a fresh order. The petitioner instead of approaching the licensing authority has filed this writ petition, which is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that if the petitioner files an application, the licensing authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that his licence, which was cancelled earlier, should have been revived after his acquittal in criminal case, but the respondents have not passed any such order. Though the said claim was made by the petitioner, he has not brought anything on record to show that he has approached the licensing authority and informed about his acquittal. 6. In view of the above, I find much substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents. Since the petitioner has filed this writ petition without approaching the licensing authority or by filing any representation, I find no ground made out in this writ petition for granting relief as prayed for. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to approach the licensing authority and inform him about his acquittal. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the licensing authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 7. With the said observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.