IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7129 of 2006
Jagdish Kumar, son of Krishori Lal Warahpuriya, resident of village
Silao, Police Station Silao, District Nalanda ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgir (Nalanda)... Respondents
-----------
For the Petitioner :M/s Sudhir Singh & Ranjeet Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents :Mr. Mohan Kr. Singh, AC to G.P.-20
02/ 11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State. Also perused the counter affidavit of Respondent
nos. 2 and 3.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
21.4.2006, Annexure-7 whereunder his PDS licence,
bearing No. 70/85 has been cancelled on the ground that
he violated the terms of the licence by distributing lesser
quantity of the foodgrain to the consumer attached to his
shop. In this connection, petitioner was given notice,
bearing Memo No. 1266 dated 28.7.2005, Annexure-1
whereunder names of the consumers, who were supplied
lesser quantity of foodgrains, were not indicated, but
general allegation was made that petitioner is supplying
lesser quantity of foodgrains to the consumers attached to
his shop. In response to the show cause notice, petitioner
filed show cause reply disputing the allegation as also
2
enclosing the affidavit of various consumers attached to
his shop disputing the allegation levelled against him in
the notice and further stated that on the date of inspection,
registers maintained by him were verified by the
Inspecting Team and no irregularity was found in the
registers. Licensing Authority, however, under order dated
21.4.2006, Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit
rejected the cause shown on the ground that during the
inspection Sunder Devi, wife of Bachchan Thakur stated
before the Inspecting Team that she has been provided 12
Kilograms of wheat and 8 Kilograms of rice under
Annapurna Scheme, but on her White-card 18 Kilograms
of wheat and 12 Kilograms of rice has been shown to have
been distributed to her and indication of the higher
quantity of the foodgrains in the White-card tentamounts
to violation of the terms of the licence as also Bihar Trade
Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. In this
connection, it is further pointed out that Sunder Devi wife
of Bachchan Thakur was never examined by the
Inspecting Team in presence of the petitioner. As she was
not examined in presence of the petitioner, her name was
rightly not indicated in the show cause notice dated
3
28.7.2005, Annexure-1 as the one supporting the
allegation. It is further submitted that had Sunder Devi
been examined in presence of the petitioner, she would
have been cross-examined by the petitioner with reference
to the entries made in her White-card, as according to the
petitioner whatever quantity of foodgrain was supplied to
her, the same was noted in her White-card and the
allegation to the contrary in the order is wholly incorrect.
3. From the counter affidavit, it does not appear
that Sunder Devi wife of Bachchan Thakur was ever
examined by the Licensing Authority or the Inspecting
Team in presence of the petitioner so as to grant the
petitioner opportunity to cross-examine her with reference
to the entries made in her White-card.
4. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order
dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-7 to the supplementary
affidavit directing the Licensing Authority i.e. the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Rajgir to produce Sunder Devi wife of
Bachchan Thakur for being cross-examined by the
petitioner and if petitioner is able to satisfy with reference
to the questions put to her during the cross-examination
that the allegation levelled by her is incorrect then Fair
4
Price Shop Licence of the petitioner, bearing No. 70/85 be
restored to him.
5. Necessary order in compliance of the orders
of the High Court be passed by the Licensing Authority as
early as possible, in any case within two months from the
date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)