Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 532 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Rajak v. State of Jharkhand

2021-07-20

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Godda has dismissed the Restoration Petition No. 06/2015 (appears to be wrongly written as Restoration Petition No. 06/2016) filed by the petitioner for restoration of Misc. Case No. 37/2009-10. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner’s PDS licence no. 09/1991 was cancelled by the respondent no. 3 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda vide order as contained in memo no. 709 dated 18.12.2001. Aggrieved with the said order of cancellation, the petitioner preferred Misc. Case No. 37/2009-10 in the court of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. However, on 06.04.2015, the said Misc Case was also dismissed for default on the ground of non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, on 04.06.2015, the petitioner moved Restoration Petition No. 06/2015 for restoration of Misc. Case No. 37/2009-10, which was dismissed by the respondent no. 2 on 22.12.2015. 3. It would be evident from the aforesaid fact that the PDS licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda in the year 2001, which was challenged by the petitioner in the court of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in the year 2009-10 i.e., after about eight years. The said application preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda was also dismissed for default on 06.04.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to why the order as contained in memo no. 709 dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda was challenged by the petitioner in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Godda after about eight years. Such a huge delay committed by the petitioner in filing the application before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda remains unexplained in the present writ petition also. The casual approach of the petitioner in contesting the case thus looms large. 4. Hence, I do not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 5. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.