CWJC/16659/2018 of Gonaur Baitha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors on 21 December 2019

1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and ConsumerProtection Department, Bihar, Patna. Protection Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

3. The District Supply Officer, Sitamarhi.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Licensing Authority Sitamarhi Sadar,District-Sitamarhi.District-Sitamarhi.

5. The Block Supply Officer, Block- Suppi, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondents.

======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner: Mr.Anil Chandra, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.For the Respondents: Mr.S.Raza Ahmad – AAG5.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAYORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector dated 31.07.2018 passed in Supply Appeal No. 30/18.

The order dated 31.07.2018 is quoted below:

U;k;ky; lekgÙkkZ] lhrke<+hAvkiwfrZ vihy okn la0 30@18xksukSj cSBk cuke fcgkj ljdkjvkns k ”

31-7-18

bl okn dh dk;Zokgh vkosnd xksukSj cSBk]tu forj.k iz.kkyh foØsrk iapk;r llkSyk Fkkuk &lqIih ftyk & lhrke<+h ds }kjk vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh]lhrke<+h lnj ds ikfjr vkns”k Kkikad 01 eq[; fnukad25-04-18 ds fo:} vihy nk;j fd;k x;k gS] ftlij lquokbZ ds i”pkr okn dks lafLFkr djrs gq;s ewyvfHkys[k dh ekax vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] lhrke<+h lnjls bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 1804 fnukad 12-06-18 }kjkdh x;hA vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] lhrke<+h lnj ls ewyvfHkys[k izkIr gqvk ,oa ljdkj dh vksj ls fo”ks’k yksdvfHk;kstd ds }kjk tckc nkf[ky fd;k x;k] ftlijvihydrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo”ks’k yksdvfHk;kstd dks lqukA

vihydÙkkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dguk gSfd fnukad 29-08-17 dks llkSyk vkjk ehy ds ikl eq[;iFk ij lkbZfdy ij nks cksjk pkoy lqIih vks0ih0 ds }kjk idM+k x;k FkkA ftlesa lkbZfdy lckj }kjklkbZfdy fxjkdj ;g dgrs gq;s Hkkxk fd pkoyvihydÙkkZ ds }kjk dkykcktkjh esa cspk x;k gSA ftldsvk/kkj ij vihydÙkkZ ds fo:} estjxat Fkkuk dk.Mla0 391@17 ntZ fd;k x;kA mDr dk.M esavuqla/kkudÙkkZ ds }kjk vafre izfrosnu lk{; dh deh dsdkj.k lefiZr djrs gq;s vuqla/kku dks cUn dj fn;kx;k gSA bl laca/k esa vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] lhrke<+hlnj ds }kjk vapy vf/kdkjh&lg&iz[k.M vkiwfrZinkf/kdkjh] lqIih ls tkap izfrosnu dh ekax dh x;h Fkh]ftlesa muds }kjk vius i=kad 87 fnukad 23-10-17 }kjkizfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd miHkksDrkvksa ds }kjk foØsrkds dk;Z ls larq’V gSA mijksDr fLFkfr esa xkao dhjktfurh ds rgr lkbZfdy lckj }kjk xyr <ax lsQ¡lkus gsrq vihydÙkkZ dk uke cksydj Qjkj gks tkukbl ckr dh iqf’V djrk gSA vr% vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh]lhrke<+h lnj }kjk ikfjr vkns”k dks fujLr djus gsrqvuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA

fo”ks’k yksd vfHk;kstd] lhrke<h dk dgukgS fd iqfyl vuqla/kku esa foØsrk ds fo:} dksbZ vkjksiugha ikrs gq;s lk{; ds deh ds dkj.k vafre izfrosnulefiZr djrs gq;s vuqla/kku dks cUn dj fn;k x;k gSAvuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] lhrke<+h lnj }kjk tks tkapdjk;k x;k FkkA mDr tkap izfrosnu foØsrk ds fo:}dksbZ Bksl vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA

bl izdkj mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkdks lquus ,oa vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li’V gksrk gS fdfoØsrk ds fo:} vko”;d oLrq vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZrestjxat Fkkuk dk.M la0 391@17 ntZ gS rFkk mDrvkjksi ls U;k;ky; }kjk mUgsa nks’k eqDr ugha fd;k x;kgSA vr,o vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] lhrke<+h]lnj ds }kjk ikfjr vkns”k esa dksbZ =qfV ugha gSA vr% muds }kjkikfjr vkns”k dks ;Fkkor j[krs gq;s vihydÙkkZ ds vihyvkosnu dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

ys[kkfir ,oa la”kksf/krA

lekgÙkkZ lekgÙkkZ lhrke<+h lhrke<+h

From perusal of the order of the appellate authority,the court finds that without application of mind, the appellateauthority has passed the order. In his discussion, he has notedthat the Supply Officer in his report dated 23.10.2017 has statedthat he is satisfied with the work of the petitioner as PDSDealer. He also noted the circumstance which indicate thatpetitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He also notedthe fact that during investigation, the police did not find anymaterial against the petitioner and submitted the final formagainst him, however, the Collector has dismissed the appeal.

Such consideration and decision totally lacksobjectivity and application of mind and as such the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed.However, quashing of the impugned order will not come in theway of the respondents, if any material surfaced to connect thepetitioner with the offence of black marketing, the respondentsshall take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

ravishankar/-

U

Otherwise, the petitioner would be entitled to restoration of hisPDS licence.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)