Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10488 of 2010 ====================================================== Ambika Paswan S/O Shri Mukhlal Paswan R/O Vill Dwarika, P.S. Wazirganj, Distt-Gaya .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector Gaya 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Sadar Gaya 4. The District Supply Officer Gaya 5. The Block Supply Officer, Sadar Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10702 of 2010 ====================================================== Baleshwar Prasad Yadav S/O Shri Barho Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.- Bariara, P.S.- Wazirganj, Distt.- Gaya .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Gaya 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya 4. The District Supply Officer, Gaya 5. The Block Supply Officer, Sadar Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.10488 of 2010) For the Petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 16 (In CWJC No.10702 of 2010) For the Petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Syed Arshad Alam, S.C.3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 4 09-01-2013 In view of the fact and issues being identical in both the cases they have been considered together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.10488 of 2010 (4) dt.09-01-2013 2 / 6 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though the petitioners have appended the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya, as contained in Annexure-3 in both the writ applications, cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioners against which the petitioners filed appeal before the Collector and the same had already been dismissed vide Annexure-5 but inadvertently, at the time of filing of this writ applications, only the appellate order could be mentioned in relief portions and, as such, the petitioners want to make necessary correction in paragraph no.1 of the respective writ petitions for assailing the order passed by the original authority also. Learned counsel for the State does not have any objection in this regard. It is submitted that the original order was challenged before the appellate authority and the same has been confirmed by it. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph no.1 and challenge Annexure-3 also in both the writ applications. Through these writ applications, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer as contained in Annexure-3 by which the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.10488 of 2010 (4) dt.09-01-2013 3 / 6 petitioners’ licences have been cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 03.05.2010 passed in Supply Appeal Case No.39 of 2008 and Supply Appeal Case No.41/2008 respectively passed by the Collector, Gaya whereby the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer as contained in Annesure-3 has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though show cause notices were issued upon the petitioners but it has disclosed only vague allegation and except one Sideshwar Singh, whose name has been mentioned in the charge no.5, the notices have not disclosed as to who had made any complaint against the petitioners with regard to the other charges. It is also submitted that the inquiry report as well as the statements of the complainants, recorded by the authorities behind the back of the petitioners during the course of inquiry, were not supplied to the petitioners at any stage and, as such, the petitioners had only filed the reply to the show cause notice only on the basis of the disclosures made in the show cause notices. However, even that reply to the show cause notice was also not considered in the proper perspective inasmuch as despite the clear statement of the petitioners that all the distribution of the food grains to all the concerned were done in the presence of the Mukhiya as well as 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.10488 of 2010 (4) dt.09-01-2013 4 / 6 other representatives but the opinion of none of them was considered by the licensing authority. All that has been stated in the impugned order is that the petitioners’ explanations are not satisfactory. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State taking a ground that show cause notices were issued upon the petitioners and after considering the reply the order impugned has been passed and, as such, the writ applications are fit to be rejected. Though it has further been stated on behalf of the State that the appellate authority in its order has considered all the aspects, however, it is well settled that the error committed by the original authority cannot be cured by the appellate authority even if there is subsequent consideration of the issues involved. A reference is made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and other 1999(1) BLJ, 458. Thus, I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and hold that the show cause notice dated 07.01.2008 contained in Annexure-1 does not disclose anything regarding the nature of the complaint made by the particular persons and it does not appear either from the documents or from 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.10488 of 2010 (4) dt.09-01-2013 5 / 6 the counter affidavit that a copy of the inquiry report or the statements of the complainants were supplied to the petitioners. Though it has been submitted on behalf of the State that the inquiry was only of preliminary nature and, thereafter, show cause notices were issued but in the absence of any further inquiry report it can be construed that the same was the only inquiry made in this matter. Thus, the petitioners were entitled to know regarding the nature of the complaint and the details of the same for making proper reply to the show cause notice. In the absence of above, the impugned order as contained in Anenxure-3 as well as the appellate order cannot be sustained under law. Accordingly, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-3 and Annexure-5 in both the writ applications, are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for its reconsideration in accordance with law after supplying all the relevant documents to the petitioners. Such decision should be taken within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and after granting reasonable opportunity as per the statute to the petitioners. However, it is made clear that passing of this order does not mean that there would be automatic resumption of supplies to the petitioners as the same would depend upon the final decision which would be taken by the licensing authority in 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.10488 of 2010 (4) dt.09-01-2013 6 / 6 compliance of the present order. Accordingly, both the writ applications stand allowed to the extent as indicated above. Sanjay-II/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)