Ganesh Prasad Sah vs State Of Bihar & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 18.08.2011(Annexure-3), passed by the Licensing Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kahalgaon

(Respondent No. 4) by which his PDS licence has been cancelled.

The appeal preferred before the District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhagalplur being Supply Appeal No. 56/2011-12 also met the same fate and the

Misc. Supply Revision No. 67/2015-16 before the learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division also has been dismissed.

Petitioner has filed this writ application that the show cause notice dated 04.08.2011, as contained in Annexure-1, postulates only three days to file

reply, which was not sufficient. He submits that the report of the Block Supply Officer, Narkatiyaganj, who had conducted the inspection, was also

called by the Licensing Authority, but the said report vide letter No. 221 dated 17.08.2011 was not supplied to the petitioner, as such, the order

cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside and, consequently, the subsequent orders

passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities is also fit to be quashed.

However, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13946 of 2013 against the

cancellation order passed by the Licensing Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 07.06.2013 and this Court under order

dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure-5) directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision before the Revisional Authority.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the show cause notice, which postulates only three days to submit the reply

was insufficient and is in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given sufficient time to reply. If the initial order is held to

be bad, the subsequent orders also would have held to be bad as the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to file reply to the show cause, as

has been held in the case of Smt. Phulpati Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2013(1) PLJR 718.

The petitioner was not even supplied the opinion of the Block Supply Officer, Kahalgaon and the said opinion (copy of the enquiry report) and non-

supply of the opinion/ enquiry report has also resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, and, thus, the decision making process stands vitiated.

The similar view has been taken in the case of Kamakhya Narain Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 645 of 2018) vide order dated

03.07.2018 that if the cancellation order has been passed without giving sufficient time to file reply to the show cause and without providing the copy

of the enquiry report to the petitioner, such infirmity cannot be cured in appeal or revison.

The enquiry report having been supplied after the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13946 of 2013 dated 30.09.2015 at the revisional

stage, which also vitiates the order cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner passed prior to supply of enquiry report. Thus, the order dated

18.08.2011, passed by the Licensing Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisonal Officer, Kahalgaon (Respondent No. 4), the order dated 07.06.2013, passed by

the District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhagalpur in Supply Appeal No. 56/2011-12 and the revisional order dated 19.05.2016, passed by the

Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division in Misc. Supply Revision No. 67/2015-16 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisonal Officer,

Kahalgaon (Respondent No. 4) to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to show cause. Supply to the

petitioner in the meantime, would be restored without any delay until fresh order is passed by the Licensing Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisonal Officer,

Kahalgaon (Respondent No. 4).

This writ application is, accordingly, allowed.