IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.823 of 2011
Karu Choudhary
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
-----------
2 7.7.2011 The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated
2.12.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya
contained in memo no.1064 whereby the licence no.38/2007
under Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2001 has been
cancelled.
The petitioner submits that a copy of the enquiry
report was not given to him and Sheo Kumar Sah one of the
complainants is not a consumer under him. He submits that the
name of other complainant has not been mentioned in the order.
The petitioner further submits that as the impugned order has been
passed without thus giving adequate opportunity, the same may be
set aside.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State wherein it has been stated that pursuant to the complaint
made an enquiry was made by the Block Supply Officer,
Wazirganj who submitted enquiry report containing the statement
of several consumers.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of
the view that the petitioner should take all these points before the
Appellate Authority i.e. before the Collector, Gaya that the
impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is bad in law
2
as the enquiry report has not been given to him. He may refer the
order dated 6.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.1201 of 2008 (Md.
Shafique Alam Vs State of Bihar & Ors) and its analogous cases.
In case the petitioner files an appeal, the learned Collector would
consider his application for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal as the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this court.
The appeal be disposed of preferably within four months from the
date of condonation of delay.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this
writ petition stands disposed of.
(S.P.Singh,J)
KHAN