Advocates:
['Rajeev Kumar Labh', 'LALIT KISHORE AG', '', 'S Raza Ahmad AAG']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8349 of 2020

======================================================

Khushi Lal Prasad Son of Nakchhed Sah Resident of Village- Athmohan, P.S.-

Jharaukhar, District- East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer

Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran.

3.

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Sikrahna, Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Rajeev Kumar Labh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr. Alok Ranjan AC to AG

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 07-01-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent-State.

The petitioner’s Public Distribution System license

has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 16.04.2020. The

petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the said

order.

The short submissions advanced by the petitioner’s

counsel is that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner

prior to passing of the impugned order. The order visiting the

petitioner with civil consequences is without any basis as neither

any show cause has been issued nor he has been allowed

opportunity to say anything or be heard in the matter before

passing of the impugned order by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8349 of 2020 dt.07-01-2021

2/5

Sikrahna. The Court had, earlier, granted time to the State for

filing counter affidavit. The counter affidavit has been filed.

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the

petitioner has adequate alternative remedy and without exhausting

the same, he has rushed to this Court. He further submits that

Annexure- C dated 16.04.2020, is the show cause which was sent

to the petitioner. The extract of the Peon Book has also been

enclosed as Annexure- D to the counter affidavit and it is

submitted that the Peon had reported that after seeing the show

cause notice, the petitioner refused to accept the same and,

therefore, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner has

not availed of the opportunity granted to him under Annexure- C

dated 16.04.2020 and, therefore, a grievance cannot be raised that

the order is without any show cause or opportunity to the

petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that bare perusal of the

show cause notice dated 16.04.2020 would show that it allowed

the petitioner opportunity to place his response before the Sub

Divisional Officer on the very same day by 4 PM in the afternoon.

He further denies and disputes the report submitted by the Peon

(Annexure -D to the counter affidavit). It is his specific assertion

that the show cause notice was never served to him.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8349 of 2020 dt.07-01-2021

3/5

On consideration of the rival submissions, this Court

would observe that whether the Peon made efforts to serve notice

on the petitioner or not and whether he refused to accept the same

is a disputed question of fact This Court would not embark on

determination of this disputed issue.

Having said so, this Court would further observe that

from Annexure- C brought on record by the State itself it is

apparent that the show cause notice was issued on 16.04.2020,

asking the petitioner to submit his show cause in respect of some

allegation ranging from January, 2020 till April 2020. The

petitioner was also required to place the Registers and documents

in connection with the business of Public Distribution System

being carried on by him. All these things were required to be done

under the notice by 4 PM on the same very day. Even if the notice

had been served on the petitioner then, by no stretch of

imagination, it can be consid