Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1125 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar

2018-07-23

VIKASH JAIN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vikash Jain, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order contained in Memo No. 164 dated 11.07.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi (Annexure-3) by which the license granted to the petitioner for carrying on the business of PDS shop has been cancelled. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order of cancellation of the petitioner's PDS licence has been passed without a show cause in that regard and the only other show cause issued was for the purpose of suspension of the petitioner's licence. It is therefore submitted that the impugned action has been taken without confronting the petitioner with regard to cancellation of the licence. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court rendered in Bhola Prasad Yadav v. The State of Bihar & others, 2010 (3) PLJR 825 and also in Parsauni Khirodhar Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd. & others v. The State of Bihar and others, 2015 (3) PLJR 189 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. The stand of the petitioner with regard to non-service of the show cause has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. 5. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the show cause was issued only with regard to suspension of the petitioner's licence and no further show cause was issued proposing cancellation of the PDS licence. The impugned order of cancellation cannot therefore be said to be founded upon a show cause for proposed cancellation which vitiates the decision making process as being violative of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the show cause notice, in not indicating the proposed cancellation of the licence, also failed to fulfill the mandatory requirement in terms of Clause 7(ii) of the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 as held in Parsauni Khirodhar Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Bihar and others, 2015 (3) PLJR 189 . 6. The impugned order contained in Memo No. 164 dated 11.07.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. 7. v. The State of Bihar and others, 2015 (3) PLJR 189 . 6. The impugned order contained in Memo No. 164 dated 11.07.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. 7. It is made clear however that the respondents shall be at liberty to take fresh steps in the matter after issuance of fresh show cause notice and in accordance with law, if so advised. 8. In the meantime, licence of the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the Respondent no.2.