IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5440 of 2010
1. KUBER PRASAD S/O LATE YAMUNA PRASAD R/O VILLAGE-
REVEEL GANJ, P.S -REVEEL GANJ, DISTRICT- SARAN.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLY
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN.
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN.
4. THE SUB -DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHAPRA SADAR, SARAN.
5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, SARAN.
6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, REVEEL GANJ, SARAN.
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Khurshid Alam, Advocate
For the State:- Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, S.C.-15 &
Mr. Abdus Shakoor, A.C. to S.C.-15
-----------
05. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
5.2.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Saran At
Chapra and the subsequent order dated 8.3.2010 by which
his Public Distribution System license has been suspended
and he has been directed to deposit Rs. 48,038/-.
It is submitted that the petitioner came to this
Court originally in C.W.J.C. No. 9369 of 2009 with the
grievance that on account of non-supply of coupons he is
unable to supply food grain articles meant for distribution
under the Antadoya Yojana to the beneficiaries and has
highlighted that articles are lying in the godown. The
counter affidavit blamed the petitioner. The Writ Court
declined to go into the allegations and counter allegations
and directed the Divisional Commissioner to look into the
2
matter, fix responsibility and take appropriate action
against the erring.
The petitioner claims to have filed his
representation on 17.9.2009 enclosing the order of the
Court. He asserts in paragraph-18 of the present
application that when nothing further transpired he filed
M.J.C. No. 13 of 2010 on 5.1.2010 for initiating contempt
proceedings. Thereafter the leaned Commissioner issued
notice to him on 3.2.2010 to appear before him for hearing.
The notice did not state any date for appearance and
hearing. It is asserted from paragraph-18 of the writ
application that the notice was received by the petitioner
on 4.2.2010. The next day i.e. 5.2.2010 was a Gazetted
holiday and therefore the petitioner appeared on 6.2.2010
and furnished all relevant materials. The petitioner on
8.3.2010 received two orders that his license had been
suspended and he was directed to pay the aforesaid
amount based on the final order of the Divisional
Commissioner dated 5.2.2010. Therefore the petitioner had
been denied the opportunity to defend himself.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the
order dated 8.3.2010 bearing no. 255 states that the
Divisional Commissioner has passed the order on
5.3.2010. Therefore 5.2.2010 being a Gazetted holiday is of
no relevance. If the petitioner did not appear on 5.2.2010
3
considering the urgency of the matter as this Court had
directed expedited disposal, he has only himself to blame.
The counter affidavit of the respondents does not
deny the submission of the representation by the petitioner
along with order dated 7.9.2009. Likewise, it is not in
dispute that the respondents were galvanized into the
action only after institution of the contempt application.
The notice dated 3.2.2010 of the Divisional Commissioner
fixed no date for hearing. The petitioner claims to have
appeared on 6.2.2010 asserting that 5.2.2010 was a
Gazetted holiday. All these facts have not been denied in
the counter affidavit which simply states that they need
no. The petitioner has brought on record the original copy
of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. From
the endorsement at the end, it is more than apparent that
the date is 5/2. The respondents in their counter affidavit
have not even asserted that the Divisional Commissioner
has not passed any order on 5.2.2010. They have not
considered it necessary to bring on record the original
order passed by the Divisional Commissioner which may
have revealed as to whether the order was passed on
5.2.2010 on 5.3.2010 as mentioned in the order dated
8.3.2010 being no. 255. In the nature of the controversy
created between the parties the failure of the respondents
to deny the specific assertion of facts with regard to dates,
4
this Court is left completely dissatisfied of fairness on part
of the Divisional Commissioner in passing order. The
notice dated 3.2.2010 was itself not in consonance with
law when it specified no date for hearing.
The order of the Divisional Commissioner dated
5.2.2010 is therefore set aside. Consequently, the orders
dated 8.3.2010 suspending his license and directing him to
deposit money also becomes non-sustainable and are set
aside.
The matter is remanded to the Divisional
Commissioner to fix a fresh date of hearing specifying in
notice to be issued by him, and then hear the petitioner
afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law preferably within a maximum period
of three months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
The application stands allowed.
P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)