Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 41 (PAT)

Nirbhay Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar

2012-01-10

RAVI RANJAN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2006 as contained in Annexure 1 passed by the licensing authority, whereby the petitioner’s partner, i.e., her wife, namely, Smt. Puspa Devi’s name has been deleted from the license bearing License No. 2/88 granted under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Control Order”). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to the reason that the petitioner was not keeping with good health he had made an application for inclusion of the name of his wife, namely, Smt. Puspa Devi in the license earlier granted to the petitioner for running a retail shop as there was a provision under Clause 9 of the Control Order empowering the licensing authority to make addition with regard to the names of the partner or any trade articles etc.. His request was allowed by order dated 16.12.2004 as contained in Annexure 5. However, all of a sudden petitioner has received a copy of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 that the name of the wife of the petitioner has been deleted from the license. At the time of hearing of this case learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of any hearing or filing a show cause was given to the petitioner specially when earlier his request for induction of the name of his wife was allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there has been a change in the policy of the State which stands reflected from the impugned order itself. All the licensing authorities have been directed to remove the names of the partners on the basis of such policy decision of the State. 5. However, in the opinion of this Court, since in view of the provisions under Clause 9 of the Control Order the name of the petitioner’s wife was allowed to be inducted in the license, whatever be the reason for taking steps before deletion of the name an opportunity should have been given to the concerned to show cause. It does not appear either from the impugned order or from the counter affidavit that such opportunity was given to the petitioner. 6. It does not appear either from the impugned order or from the counter affidavit that such opportunity was given to the petitioner. 6. In above view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 cannot be sustained in its present form and, accordingly, it is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority to decide it afresh by recording a reasoned order after granting the petitioner as well as the affected person an opportunity to file a show cause as well as an opportunity of hearing within six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds before the licensing authority which have been raised by him in the writ application. 7. It is made clear that this writ application has been allowed to the extent indicated above only on the ground of non adherence to the principle of audi alteram partem, however, this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of the petitioner. ?