PINTU PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner's PDS Licence No. 22/07 issued for Village-Murgidih, Panchayat- Mangra, Block- Barwadih, District-Latehar was cancelled by the respondent no. 2 vide order as contained in memo no. 482 dtd. 13/5/2017. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred Licence Restoration Appeal Case No. 10/2017 in the court of the respondent no. 1, which was taken up on 28/7/2017 and on the said date, notice was issued to both the parties as well as an enquiry report was called from the respondent no. 5 the Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Barwadih, Latehar. Subsequently, the said appeal was again taken up on 8/9/2017 and on the said date, the respondent no. 1 directed the Additional Collector to make spot verification on the basis of report of the Circle Officer, Barwadih. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said appeal was thereafter taken up by the respondent no. 1 on several dates, however, the same was not taken up on merit. On making enquiry, he was told by the officials of the respondent no. 1 that the said appeal would not be taken up on merit till the report of the Additional Collector, as per the order dtd. 8/9/2017, is received.

(3.) Be that as it may. On perusal of the entire order-sheet of the Licence Restoration Appeal Case No. 10/2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), it appears that except on 2/2/2018 (the petitioner was present on the said date), no one appeared on behalf of the parties on several dates from 8/9/2017 till 18/1/2019 i.e., the day on which the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 1. It further appears that on 18/1/2019, after recording in the order-sheet that nobody appeared for both the sides, subsequently it was written in the order that since the first party (the petitioner) did not appear on several dates, he seemed to have lost interest in the said appeal. Accordingly, the order dtd. 13/5/2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 was upheld and the said appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.