IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8863 of 2019 ======================================================

Sukhdev Prasad Yadav, Son of Ganesh Yadav, Resident of Village- Mahaguri, P.S.- Baunsi, District- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Collector, Banka, District- Banka.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka. District- Banka.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.Raza Ahmad (Aag5)

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

4 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-

“A. For quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka vide Memo No. 325 dated 31/08/2009 whereby and whereunder license of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop bearing No.- 103/84 has been cancelled with immediate effect contained in Annexure-1 and quashing and setting aside the order dated 23/6/2017 passed by the learned Collector, Banka in Control Appeal No.- 32/09-10 contained in Annexure-4 whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order has been rejected on time bared.

B. A mandamus commanding the Respondents to restore the petitioner’s license as before and to make allotment for the petitioner’s shop.

C. Any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case may be granted to him.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled vide Memo No. 325 dated 31.08.2009 and aggrieved by the cancellation, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. Learned counsel submits that the appellate authority instead of passing the orders on merits has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of laches. Learned counsel submits that due to ill health, the petitioner could not approach the appellate authority within the statutory period of limitation and he could not file the appeal. Learned counsel therefore, seeks the indulgence of this Court to condone the delay and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for passing orders afresh on the merits of the case.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has filed the appeal after lapse of more than seven and half years from the date of cancellation. Learned counsel submits that no explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner with regard to the erroneous delay of more than seven years. Learned counsel submits that as against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has remedy of filing a revision under Section 32(vi) of the (Control) Order, 2016 but without availing the same, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition. Learned counsel therefore, seeks dismissal of the present writ petition.

5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the SDO reveals that the authority has passed the order of cancellation of the PDS license of the petitioner on 31.08.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal No. 32/2009-10 and final orders were passed by the appellate authority on 23.06.2017. It is pertinent to note that the appeal is filed after lapse of more than seven and half years from the date of cancellation of PDS license. The petitioner except stating that he was ill, has not annexed any document or medical report in proof of his illness. Further, it is to be noted that as per the statue, more particularly, Section 32(iii) of (Control) O