Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 417 (PAT)

Niranjan Prasad v. State of Bihar

2013-03-21

RAVI RANJAN

body2013
ORDER I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure-3) passed by the licensing authority-cum-sub-divisional officer, Nawada Sadar by which his licence no.07/86 granted under the under Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 as well as the agreement for running PDS shop have been cancelled. The petitioner moved before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada assailing the aforesaid order in case no.24 M/2006 / 78-M-2007 which was dismissed on 03.05.2007 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, he moved before the Commissioner by filing Supply Revision No.87/2007 which was also dismissed and a review thereof was also dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2010 (Annexure-5) chiefly on the grounds of delay. 3. The petitioner raises a short question in this case that the reply to the show cause notice filed by him has not been considered by the licensing authority in its proper perspective and, thus, on this ground alone the order of cancellation of licence should be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had earlier moved against the order passed by the licensing authority in appeal which was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Nawada on 03.05.2007 itself. Thereafter, he filed supply revision no.87/2007 and the same was dismissed on 20.12.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner did not take any legal recourse against the orders and, after about two years, a review was filed which was dismissed on the ground of delay on 25.02.2010. However, so far the issue raised by the petitioner is concerned, that could not be answered by learned counsel. It is well settled that if order of any authority is going to visit civil consequence upon a person then prior to passing final order issuance of show cause notice upon such person would be mandatory and consideration of the grounds raised in the reply to the show cause notice would also be must otherwise the order would be deemed to have been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. A reference in this regard is made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and other 1999(1) BLJ, 548. A reference in this regard is made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and other 1999(1) BLJ, 548. In the aforesaid case the Division Bench has also held that if there is such lacuna or defect in the order passed by the licensing authority then the same cannot be cured even by the appellate authority. From the perusal of Annexure 3 it appears that only consideration regarding the reply to the second show cause notice is that on scrutiny that was not found to be satisfactory. 5. In my considered opinion, that would not be sufficient. It has even not been disclosed as to what grounds were actually raised by the petitioner and why those grounds had not been found tenable and were found liable to be rejected. 6. In above view of the matter, that orders impugned as contained in Annexure-3, 4 and 5 cannot be sustained in law and are quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law after consideration of the cause shown by the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. It is made clear that this would not amount to be automatic resumption of supplies to him as the same would depend upon the decision which would be taken by the licensing authority. 7. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed to the extent as indicated above.