In Santosh Kumar Manda vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 6-page long judgment dated August 6, 2025 dismissed the petition. This is the 15th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice. He concluded:"We are of the view that when there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the respondent authorities and as there is no perversity or arbitrariness in the said orders, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while rejecting the petition filed by the appellant. Accordingly, no interference is required in the present appeal. 10. The letters patent appeal is, therefore, dismissed."
The appeal was filed under Clause-X of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules against the 3-page long judgement dated April 21, 2023 passed by Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the Single Judge, whereby he had dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant/petitioner. The counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the appellant was the original writ petitioner, who had preferred the captioned petition before the High Court. In the said petition, the appellant/petitioner challenged the order dated February 4, 2012 passed by the S.D.O., Dhamdaha, whereby P.D.S. licence of the petitioner was cancelled. It was also submitted that the said order passed by the S.D.O. was challenged by filing appeal before the Collector, Purnea by filing Supply Appeal no.45 of 2012. It was submitted that the petitioner, therefore, challenged the order dated December 5, 2015 passed by the Collector, Purnea. The petitioner also challenged the order dated December 12, 2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Supply Revision No. 42 of 2017 whereby the revision application submitted by the appellant/petitioner came to be dismissed, thereby the revisional authority confirmed the orders passed by both the lower authorities.
The petitioner had challenged the three orders by filing the captioned petition. The counsel would mainly contend that the Single Judge committed an error by not appreciating the fact that the concerned respondent authority did not supply the copy of the inspection report nor they had supplied the statement given by the so called beneficiaries, who had given the statement against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the respondent authorities violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Single Judge was not properly considered the said important aspect.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the Single Judge mainly considered the fact that there were concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the concerned authorities which do not show any perversity and, therefore, on that ground the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The counsel urged that, on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, the Single Judge ought to have allowed the petition and thereby ought to have quashed and set aside all the three impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities. The counsel, therefore, urged that the appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
The senior counsel of the respondents opposed the appeal. He contended that there were concurrent findings of facts recorded by the respondent authorities and as there was no perversity Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. It was also submitted that while giving reply to the show cause notice issued by the authorities, the petitioner had not demanded any document. It was further submitted that, on the contrary, the petitioner admitted two irregularities while giving his reply. Thus, no error was committed by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned orders and, therefore, also the Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition. He, therefore, urged that the appeal be dismissed.
Justice Pancholi observed: "7. It is required to be observed at the outset that the petitioner has not produced the copy of the show cause dated 27.12.2011 and the reply given by the petitioner to the said show cause. However, during the course of hearing of the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has supplied the copies of the aforesaid two documents. We have gone through the show cause notice issued by the concerned respondent authorities and the reply given by the petitioner of the said notice. From the aforesaid documents, it transpires that the petitioner has admitted in his reply with regard to the first two irregularities alleged by the respondent authorities. However, so far as the third irregularity alleged by the respondent authority is concerned, the petitioner has merely denied the said allegation, however, if the reply given by the petitioner is carefully examined, it is revealed that he has not, in fact, demanded any document from the respondent authority nor he has requested for supply of the enquiry report. 8. We have gone through the relevant provisions contained in Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and more particularly Clause-7(1)(a) thereof. We are of the view that the concerned respondent authority has rightly exercised the powers vested in him under the said clause and thereby cancelled the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. Certain irregularities were found, as stated in the show cause notice."
No comments:
Post a Comment