CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Netlal Rai @ Netalal Ray vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 7 January 2020 · Citation: (2020) 01 PAT CK 0124

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashutosh Kumar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8070 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 348 words
1.

The licence of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh on 28.02.2019.

2.

From the order impugned, it appears that a complaint was made by some of the customers tagged with the shop of the petitioner, which, on enquiry,

was found to be partially correct and the petitioner was given a strict warning to run his P.D.S. shop in accordance with the rules in that regard. This

did not satisfiy the complainants, who took the matter to the Public Grievance Redressal Cell, whereafter a proceeding was initiated against the

petitioner.

3.

The petitioner appears to have replied to the show-cause notice and in such reply, amongst other grounds, it has primarily been asserted that the

complainants are no longer tagged with the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner, rather, on their choice, they have been tagged with another shop. In that

view of the matter, any complaint by them was irrelevant and the allegations put up by them could not have been saddled on the petitioner.

4.

This aspect of the matter does not appear to have engaged the attention of the licensing authority or at least, the aforesaid issue has not at all been

answered in the impugned order. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh has only stated that the explanation offered by the petitioner and the documents

furnished in support of the contention so raised as also the certification of the local Mukhiya is not fit to be accepted.

5.

No reason has been assigned for rejecting the aforesaid grounds of the petitioner. This makes the order impugned highly suspect and unsustainable

in the eyes of law. As such, the same cannot be sustained and is set-aside.

6.

The matter is remitted to the concerned respondent, viz., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh for wirting out a fresh reasoned order in accordance with

law, after adverting to all the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.