Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 963 (PAT)

Subhash Chandra Jha v. State Of Bihar

2015-07-30

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Writ application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge, refusing to interfere with the order of cancellation of a PDS license in view of concurrent finding of facts. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant tries to draw advantage of a recent Division Bench’s decision, which is the case of Shiv Chandra Jha Versus Harideo Jha, reported in 2013 (3) P.L.J.R. 956 , where a law was enunciated that either a punishment of suspension or punishment of cancellation of license can be passed. Both the punishments cannot be imposed simultaneously. 4. It is the stand of the counsel for the appellant that the license of the petitioner was initially suspended, which was punishment enough, and then it has been cancelled. 5. Court has certain reservation on such a stand or plea taken, but taking into consideration the said decision of the Division Bench, the Court is remanding the matter back to the licensing authority for passing a fresh order after due notice to the petitioner keeping in mind the ratio of the Division Bench. The Court deliberately does not go into the nitty-gritty of the argument since the pleadings are cursory so are the materials available on record for such adjudication. The licensing authority is better placed with the original records, which can assist him for taking a fresh decision keeping in mind the Division Bench, which has been relied upon by the appellant, which is the case of Shiv Chandra Jha (supra). 6. The impugned order, dated 07.08.2012, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2597 of 2012 is set aside. So is the order of the licensing authority, i.e., Sub-divisional Officer, Banmankhi, dated 07.10.2004 as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate in Appeal No. 152 of 2005, dated 20th of February, 2007 and thereafter the order passed in revision by the Revisional Commissioner, dated 01.06.2011. 7. Appeal is allowed with observation/direction as above. 8. The licensing authority must adjudicate the matter on priority. The appellant will appear with a copy of this order before the licensing authority within 15 days from today.