Patna High Court - Orders
Fatma vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 September, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5131 of 2014
======================================================
Fatma, Wife of Md. Ziyaur Rahman, resident of Village- Pipra Bijwar,
Police Station and Block- Palasi, District- Araria.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Collector, Araria.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Binita Singh, GP-31
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
2 11-09-2014Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the and Ms. Binita Singh, learned Government Pleader No.31 for the State.
The petitioner holds a licence bearing No.14P of 2007 issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Unification Order') for running a shop under the public distribution system. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the licensing authority, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria vide order bearing Memo No.540 dated 20.12.2007, inter alia, on grounds of not having been approved by the District Selection Committee and which order of the licensing authority was affirmed by the appellate authority being the District Magistrate, Araria when the appeal preferred by the petitioner bearing Appeal No. 216 of 2007-08 was disposed of Patna High Court CWJC No.5131 of 2014 (2) dt.11-09-2014 2 on 12.2.2008 remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the licensing authority as to whether the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria for grant of fresh licence.
Perusal of the order of cancellation of licence manifests that 329 licensees who had been issued licences under 'the Unification Order' had been cancelled on identical grounds.
It is not in dispute that 'Unification Order' did not contain any such stipulation requiring approval by the District Selection Committee. Thus there was no infirmity in the grant of licence to the petitioner.
It has been the stand of the respondents in identical matters that a circular was issued by the department requiring approval by the District Selection Committee but in the opinion of this Court in absence of any similar statutory provisions in 'the Unification Order' no stipulation could be introduced by way of a departmental circular. It is not the stand of the respondents that there was any allegation against the petitioner regarding contravention of the conditions of licence or any complaints were received against him alleging irregularities. In fact, except for the reasons that the licence of the petitioner did not have the approval of the District Selection Committee, there is no other ground for cancellation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5131 of 2014 (2) dt.11-09-2014 3
The same very issue came up before this Court in CWJC No.14525 of 2008 (Ravi Shankar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar) and which writ petition was allowed on 4.11.2011 and the order of the learned Single Judge was approved in LPA No.292 of 2013 (The State of Bihar Vs. Ravi Shankar Mishra) when the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State was dismissed on 14.3.2013.
In view of the legal position discussed hereinabove as well as the pronouncement of this Court the order of cancellation of licence dated 20.12.2007 as contained in Annexure-3 and the appellate order dated 12.2.2008 passed in Appeal No.216 of 2007- 08 as contained in Annexure-4 cannot be upheld and are accordingly set aside. As a consequence the licence of the petitioner stands restored. The consequences shall follow.
The writ petition is allowed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U