Naveen Kumar vs State Of Bihar

Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul Haque for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2020, passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Patna City, whereby the targeted consumers of the petitioner have been tagged with another PDS Dealer, namely, Sanjay Kumar, bearing Licence No.2/2016.

Mr. Agrawal contends that without initiating any proceeding against the petitioner, i.e., without suspending his licence and issuing notice to him, the consumers attached to the petitioner’s shop could not have been tagged to another PDS dealer.

From the impugned order, it appears that pursuant to an FIR having been registered against the petitioner, he absconded. This was the reason for the respondent S.D.O. to tag the consumers to another PDS Dealer of the locality.

Mr. Agrawal further submits that as on date, the petitioner is on bail and, therefore, is not a fugitive. Before taking the decision of tagging the consumers of the petitioner to another PDS Dealer, the proceeding against the petitioner ought to have begun and concluded.

There is no justification for not taking any action against the petitioner in case an FIR was lodged against him under the E.C. Act.

The respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and take a decision within the stipulated period of 180 days.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.