Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Savinandan Paswan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5221 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Maintainability - Writ Petition - Quashing of PDS Licence Cancellation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the order cancelling the PDS Licence and the dismissal of the appeal, seeking restoration of the licence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage as the petitioner had an efficacious remedy of preferring a second appeal before the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition at this stage, considering the availability of an alternative remedy for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioner had an alternative remedy of preferring a second appeal before the Commissioner, the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, but the petitioner was granted the liberty to prefer a second appeal before the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar.
ORDER :
1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 1675 dated 18th November, 2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the PDS Licence No. 03/2005 granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 12th February, 2021 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to restore the said PDS licence in his favour.
3. Mr. A.R. Kiskoo, learned A.C. to S.C. VII appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner has efficacious remedy of challenging the order dated 18th November, 2017 passed by the original authority as well as the order dated 12th February, 2021 passed by the appellant authority by preferring a second appeal before the concerned Divisional Commissioner in terms with Clause 30(1) of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2019.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring second appeal before the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar under Clause 30(1) of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2019, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.
5. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to prefer second appeal before the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar under Clause 30(1) of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2019.
6. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with the aforesaid liberty.
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
