IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2013 of 2005
BANESHWAR MAHTO, SON OF SHRI MADHUSUDAN
MAHTO,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAZIYA, P.S. DANDGHORA,
DISTT. KATIHAR...........................PETITIONER.
Versus
1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
2.THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR
3.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KATIHAR
....RESPONDENTS.
For the petitioner : M/s N.K. Agrawal and D.N. Tiwari,
Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Samrendra, SC-21
-----------
02/ 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar and its
authorities.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging order dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure-1)
by which Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar (respondent no.3)
cancelled Fair Price Shop Licence No.28 of 1985 under the
Public Distribution System.
3. It further transpires that when a proceeding
was initiated licence of the petitioner was suspended under
the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences
Unification) Order, 1984 by the said authority vide order
dated 25.11.2002 (Anneuxre-4), whereafter an opportunity
for filing show cause was given to the petitioner, who also
filed his show-cause twice and finally vide order dated
09.12.2004 (Annexure-1) the said authority cancelled the
licence of the petitioner.
-2-
4. From the impugned order it is quite apparent
that the authority concerned had not considered the defence
taken by the petitioner and the materials produced by him
rather the said order was passed merely on the direction of the
District Magistrate, Katihar which was sent to the Sub-
Divisional Officer vide letter dated 04.12.2004 (Annexure-6)
issued by the Supply Officer, Katihar. As a result, the licence
of the petitioner had been cancelled in a cursory manner
without giving any reason and without pointing out any
lacuna in the conduct of the petitioner.
5. So far the District Magistrate is concerned, he
is an appellate authority as per the aforesaid Bihar Trade
Articles (Licences Unification ) Order, 1984 and he had no
jurisdiction to send such directions to the Sub-Divisional
Officers who according to the provisions of law had to apply
their independent minds on the facts and circumstances of the
case, pleadings of the parties and the materials available on
record which in the instant case is absolutely absent.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this
writ petition is allowed. Order of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Katihar dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed
and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar is directed to decide
the matter afresh considering the pleadings of the parties, the
materials and the provision of law applicable thereto without
being influenced and without considering the aforesaid order
or any other order in that regard passed by the District
-3-
Magistrate. If the petitioner files an application along with a
copy of this order within four weeks from today, the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Katihar shall hear the parties and decide
the matter by a speaking order within three months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)