FULPATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not feel it necessary to call upon the respondents to file counter affidavit in the case. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that this Court may dispose of the application on the basis of materials available on record. By the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 22.11.2011, vide Annexure-2, PDS licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. Said order has been confirmed also in appeal by the Collector by order dated 5.5.2012, vide Annexure-1. Annexure-3 is the show cause notice, which shows that it was issued on 16.11.2011. In the show cause notice, three days time was allowed to the petitioner to file her show cause.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not know about the notice as she was ill during the period. Hence, she did not file show cause and in her absence the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order cancelling her licence. He also submits that in appeal petitioner had brought this issue as ground no. (B) in the memo of appeal but the Collector has not considered the same and has brushed aside the ground taken by the petitioner and held that the ground of illness taken by the petitioner appears to be 'Post Thought'. He submits that illness or no illness, only three days time was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was very short, and thereafter, he passed final orders within one week, without ensuring that notice was served on her.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. From the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer also it does not appear that he has taken care to ascertain service of notice was affected on the petitioner or not. The fact that after issue of notice on 16th of November, 2011 he passed final orders on 22nd of November, 2011 without mentioning in his order that the notice had been served on the petitioner, shows that he acted in hot haste. In the circumstances, appellate order of the Collector dated 5.5.2012 (Annexure-1) and the original order of the Sub-Divisional Officer contained in Memo No. 758 dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure-2) are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Arwal to consider the representation of the petitioner, allow her to file further representation and thereafter, pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law.