IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1201 of 2008
MD.SAFIQUE ALAM, SON OF LATE ABDUL AZIZ, R/O BODH GAYA,
P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTT. GAYA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA.
4. ASSISTANT DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, SADAR GAYA.
5. MARKETING OFFICER, GAYA TOWN, GAYA.
With
CWJC No.2365 of 2008
MD.SABIR ALAM, SON OF LATE KASIM, R/O CHHACHH, P.S. BODH
GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA.
5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, FATEHPUR, DISTT. GAYA.
6. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA, DISTT. GAYA.
7. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, WAZIRGANJ, DISTT. GAYA.
With
CWJC No.2492 of 2008
BAL RAM PASWAN, SON OF LAL MUNI PASWAN,
R/O MORA TAL, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTT. GAYA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA.
5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, ZARIGANJ, GAYA
With
CWJC No.2503 of 2008
RAM BRIKSH PRASAD MEHTA, SON OF JAGAN PRASAD MEHTA,
R/O VILLAGE BAKRAUR, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTT. GAYA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA.
5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, FATEHPUR, DISTT. GAYA.
6. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, MANPUR, GAYA.
With
CWJC No.2719 of 2008
JAGAT NANDAN PRASAD, SON OF SRI HARIHAR PRASAD, R/O
BATASPUR, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTT. GAYA.
-2-
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA.
4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, FATEHPUR(GAYA).
5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, MANPUR(GAYA)
With
CWJC No.2918 of 2008
HASNAIN AHMAD KHAN, SON OF KALAMUDDIN KHAN, R/O
VILLAGE HATHIYAR, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, GAYA.
5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, WAZIRGANJ, GAYA
For the petitioners : M/s. Surnedra Kr. Singh, S. Hafez Ahmad, Advocates.
For the State : M/s. Pramod Kumar, AC to SC-1, S.B.N. Singh, AC to SC-17, Chandan
Kr. Verma, AC to AAG-8, Arjun Prasad Singh, AC to SC-2, Advocates.
-----------
05. 06.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2. In this batch of writ petition petitioners are the PDS
dealer. They have challenged the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, whereunder their PDS
licence has been cancelled in response to notice dated 25.7.2007. On
the direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya officers of the
supply section of the sub division, executive magistrates serving under
the Sub-Divisional Officer as also the Block Supply Officer inspected
the shop premises of the petitioners and found irregularities, including
the fact that the premises of four of the petitioners was found locked.
On the basis of the report dated 26.6.2007, notice dated 25.7.2007 was
issued to the petitioners asking them to show cause as to why for the
irregularities found during inspection and noted in the notice dated
-3-
25.7.2007 their PDS licence be not cancelled.
3. In response to notice dated 25.7.2007 petitioners filed
their show cause reply disputing the allegation and submitted that
without serving the copy of the report, on the basis of which notice
dated 25.7.2007 has been issued, they are deprived of the adequate
opportunity to defend themselves. The Sub-Divisional Officer having
considered the show cause rejected the same under the impugned
order dated 26.11.2007 without even serving the copy of the report on
the basis of which notice dated 25.7.2007 was issued and order dated
26.11.2007 was passed. During the hearing of these petitions counsel
for the petitioners again reiterated the same submission that on
account of failure of the Sub-Divisional Officer to serve on the
petitioners the copy of the report dated 26.6.2007 petitioners have
been handicapped in filing their reply. It is submitted that had the
copy of the report dated 26.6.2007 been served on the petitioners they
would have satisfied the Sub-Divisional Officer that the irregularities
found in the report is not correct.
4. Counsel for the State, although filed counter affidavit in
each of the writ petitions but did not dispute the submission that copy
of the report dated 26.6.2007 was not served on the petitioners.
Counsel for the State, however pointed out that the order impugned is
appealable and petitioners be relegated to the forum of appeal.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties, it is quite evident
that order dated 26.11.2007 has been passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer without serving copy of the report dated 26.6.2007 and in my
-4-
opinion, service of report dated 26.6.2007 which was the basis of the
notice dated 25.7.2007 was quite essential so as to satisfy the
requirement of natural justice. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned
order dated 26.11.2007 and direct the petitioners to appear before the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, who shall serve the copy of the
report dated 26.6.2007 on the petitioners, thereafter petitioner shall
file their further reply and the matter be again considered by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, as early as possible, in any case within one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of the show cause reply. Present
direction has been issued ignoring the submission of the counsel for
the State that against the impugned order petitioners have remedy of
appeal, as these writ petitions have remained pending in this Court for
over two years. It is made clear that report dated 26.6.2007 be served
on the petitioners within one week of the receipt of this order by the
Sub-Divisional Officer.
6. The writ application(s) are, accordingly, disposed of.
Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)