Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Pintu Paswan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 6626 of 2019
Decided On : 31-08-2021
European Convention of Human Rights - Article 6 - Restoration Appeal Case - Arbitrariness and discrimination - Quasi-judicial authority - Respondent no. 2 vide order as contained in memo. Aggrieved with said order, petitioner preferred Licence Restoration Appeal Case in court of respondent no. 1, which was taken and on said date, notice was issued to both parties as well as an enquiry report was called from respondent no. 5, Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer said appeal was again taken - learned counsel for petitioner, said appeal was thereafter taken up by respondent no. 1 – Held, potentially affect rights of parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon authorities, when vested with powers to pass orders of determinative nature. standard of fairness is also dependent upon certainty in State action, that is, class of persons, subject to regulation by Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably anticipate order for action that State is likely to take in a given situation - Judicial authority is bound to give reasons while passing order. purpose of giving reason is to operate as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power- It also facilitates superior authority to determine soundness of decision while hearing appeal/revision - Writ petition is disposed of.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remaining defect as pointed out by the office is ignored.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1, the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in Licence Restoration Appeal Case No. 10/2017, whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in memo no. 482 dated 13.05.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2, the District Supply Officer, Latehar cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner, has been rejected without entering into the merit of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner’s PDS Licence No. 22/07 issued for Village-Murgidih, Panchayat-Mangra, Block-Barwadih, District-Latehar was cancelled by the respondent no. 2 vide order as contained in memo no. 482 dated 13.05.2017. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred Licence Restoration Appeal Case No. 10/2017 in the court of the respondent no. 1, which was taken up on 28.07.2017 and on the said date, notice was issued to both the parties as well as an enquiry report was called from the respondent no. 5, the Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Barwadih, Latehar. Subsequently, the said appeal was again taken up on 08.09.2017 and on the said date, the respondent no. 1 directed the Additional Collector to make spot verification on the basis of report of the Circle Officer, Barwadih. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said appeal was thereafter taken up by the respondent no. 1 on several dates, however, the same was not taken up on merit. On making enquiry, he was told by the officials of the respondent no. 1 that the said appeal would not be taken up on merit till the report of the Additional Collector, as per the order dated 08.09.2017, is received.
3. Be that as it may. On perusal of the entire order-sheet of the Licence Restoration Appeal Case No. 10/2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), it appears that except on 02.02.2018 (the petitioner was present on the said date), no one appeared on behalf of the parties on several dates from 08.09.2017 till 18.01.2019 i.e. the day on which the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 1. It further appears that on 18.01.2019, after recording in the order-sheet that nobody appeared for both the sides, subsequently it was written in the order that since the first party (the petitioner) did not appear on several dates, he seemed to have lost interest in the said appeal. Accordingly, the order dated 13.05.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 was upheld and the said appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
4. The manner in which the respondent no. 1 has dismissed the said appeal cannot be said to be proper and justified. The order-sheets of Licence Restoration Appeal Case No. 10/2017 itself indicate that no one appeared on behalf of both the sides on several dates from 08.09.2017 till 18.01.2019 except 02.02.2018 as indicated hereinabove. It is not the case where the second party i.e. the representative of the department appeared on different dates and the petitioner was unrepresented. In fact, in the aforesaid dates, nobody had appeared on behalf of both the sides and hence, it was completely unwarranted for the respondent no. 1 to dismiss the said appeal only on the ground that no one represented the petitioner on different dates that too without entering into the merit of the case. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that he himself had appeared on several dates before the respondent no. 1, yet the said factual assertion cannot be examined under the writ jurisdiction of this Court as the order-sheets suggest that no one appeared on behalf of both the sides before the respondent no. 1 on the aforesaid
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
