Ram Uday Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) and other
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14764 of 2011 ====================================================== Jagdama Paswan S/O Late Daroga Paswan R/O Vill.- Taufi Deare, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Munger Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Munger 3. The S.D.O., Sadar, Munger .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s Nawal Kishore Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, and. For the State : Mr. S.A. Alam, SC3 Vijay Anand, Advocate Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, AC to SC 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 10 09-04-2013
Legal Reasoning
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have perused the record of the case. Through this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16th September, 2006 (Annexure 3) passed by the licensing authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, by which the licence of the petitioner issued under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of certain direction of the State Government contained in letter no. 223 dated 18.05.2006 and also the report of the inquiry conducted by the Cabinet Vigilance Bureau dated 24.07.2006, several orders of cancellation of licences of the respective Patna High Court CWJC No.14764 of 2011 (10) dt.09-04-2013 2 licensees had been passed mechanically in a cyclostyled format without consideration of their respective replies submitted in response to the show-cause notices. It is urged that the orders have been passed in a mechanical manner, i.e., without application of mind only on the direction of the superior authority and taking into account the report of the Cabinet Vigilance Bureau by mechanically stating in all such cases that the causes shown by the licensees are not to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. It is contended that similar order has been passed vide Annexure 3 with regard to the petitioner also. It is further contended that the impugned order of cancellation has been passed in casual manner and the same is cryptic, arbitrary and in violation of the settled Principles of law as there is a lack of even brief discussion of grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner in the impugned order which has been passed and also without disclosing the cause of rejection of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court, as contained in Annexure 4, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12675 of 2006 (Ram Uday Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) and other analogous matters. The impugned order in the aforesaid case was set aside on the aforesaid ground and, thus, the petitioner seeks passing of the similar order in the Patna High Court CWJC No.14764 of 2011 (10) dt.09-04-2013 3 present case. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State - respondent- no. 3. Learned counsel for the State has made an endeavour to defend the impugned order on the grounds mentioned in the counter affidavit, however, he could not point out from the impugned order that the grounds raised in the cause shown by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice as contained in Annexure 1 has been discussed and rejected by assigning some reason. I, thus, find force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled that if an order is going to visit any civil consequence upon a person or a party in that case issuance of show-cause notice would be mandatory and consideration of cause shown by such person or licensee would also be a must so that the superior authority, while sitting in appeal, would be able to understand as to on what ground such action has been taken by the licensing authority. Failure to do so would be fatal and the order could be termed to have been passed in a mechanical manner, i.e., without application of mind if no reason has been assigned while rejecting the ground raised by such person in his reply to the show-cause notice. A reference in this regard is made to a decision Patna High Court CWJC No.14764 of 2011 (10) dt.09-04-2013 4 of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Umesh Chandra Kumar Dinesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and others(1999(1) B.L.J., 548). That apart, even the licence number of the petitioner also appears to have been wrongly mentioned in the show-cause notice as 5/89 in place of 3/89 according to the petitioner. Thus, in my considered view, the order of the licensing authority in the aforementioned facts and circumstances cannot be sustained in the present form. However, learned counsel for the State has raised an issue that the writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay and on this ground alone the same should be dismissed. There is undoubtedly delay of several years on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court and a peculiar stand has been taken by him in a supplementary affidavit that the delay was on part of the counsel who was entrusted to file this writ application. It is submitted that several identical writ applications were filed and orders were passed setting aside the orders of cancellation by this Court but, inadvertently, this case could not be filed and this was detected after much delay. Learned counsel has categorically stated that the petitioner would be ready to pay cost if it is imposed by this Court. No doubt, there is delay in filing the writ application and a Patna High Court CWJC No.14764 of 2011 (10) dt.09-04-2013 5 peculiar stand has been taken in explaining the delay in the supplementary affidavit but in view of the fact that I have arrived at a conclusion that the order impugned is not sustainable in law and several orders to that extent have been passed including one that has been passed by this Court contained in Annexure 4 setting aside similar orders passed in cyclostyled format, there would be no difficulty in taking a similar view in this matter but not without imposing cost upon the petitioner for delay in approaching this Court. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being allowed in terms of the order dated 11.07.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12675 of 2006 (Ram Uday Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) and other analogous matters as contained in
Decision
Annexure 4 and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for reconsideration and passing a reasoned order after consideration of the cause shown by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner should be provided an opportunity of being heard on the date and time fixed by the respondent-authority. Since this matter has been passed in presence of the Patna High Court CWJC No.14764 of 2011 (10) dt.09-04-2013 6 petitioner, he is expected to appear before the respondent concerned within ten weeks along with a certified copy of this order. However, this order would be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-(rupees five thousand) in favour of the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within eight weeks and the petitioner would be required to produce the receipt thereof before the Registrar General of this Court within the aforesaid time in the absence of which this application would stand dismissed. The petitioner would further be required to file an affidavit before the licensing authority appending therewith a copy of the aforesaid receipt at the time of filing of a certified copy of this order making a statement that cost has been paid and receipt granted by the concerned authority acknowledging such payment has been filed before the Registrar General. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed to the extent on the conditions as stated above. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) SC/-