Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 353 (PAT)

Ramashray Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2022-04-22

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD

body2022
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–The matter has been taken up for online hearing through video conference because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. 2. The petitioner held a licence to run a Fair Price Shop, which was cancelled by the Licensing Authority by an order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure 6). He thereafter approached the appellate authority against the said order by filing an appeal, which gave rise to Supply Appeal No.10/2017, which has been dismissed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda for default because of non-appearance of the petitioner as the appellant before him. 3. This application has been filed for setting aside the said order dated 19.01.2021. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn our attention to the entire ordersheet of the said Supply Appeal No.10/2017 to contend that though several dates were fixed for hearing of the appeal, on most of the dates, the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority himself could not hold the court because of his pre-occupations. He has submitted that normally when it is known to a party that the appellate authority is not likely to hold the court, there is a tendency of the litigants not to be present before the appellate authority on that date. In such circumstance, the petitioner remained unrepresented before the appellate court on various dates, he contends. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, wherein the entries in the ordersheet of the said Supply Appeal No.10/ 2017 has not been disputed. 6. We have carefully perused the ordersheet. In the impugned order the District Magistrate has recorded that the petitioner/appellant absented himself in the appeal proceedings regularly on 37 dates and therefore it appeared to the appellate authority that the petitioner had no interest in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed by order dated 19.01.2021. 7. On perusal of the ordersheet, it appears that the appellate authority himself was not in a position to hold court because of his own preoccupations on at least 35 occasions out of 37. On all dates except 21.12.2020 and 28.12.2020, the appellate authority was not in a position to hold court. The Court is of the opinion that as the appellate authority himself was not in a position to hold court, the absence of the petitioner on such dates is hardly of any relevance. 8. On all dates except 21.12.2020 and 28.12.2020, the appellate authority was not in a position to hold court. The Court is of the opinion that as the appellate authority himself was not in a position to hold court, the absence of the petitioner on such dates is hardly of any relevance. 8. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 deserves interference, which is, accordingly, set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits, after giving him an opportunity of hearing, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. This writ applications stands allowed.