ANJANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1970 AIR(SC) 1302 has submitted that administrative order affecting rights of a citizen must be speaking one; order impugned is not a speaking order, therefore, does not sustain in the eyes of law. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in the case of Lal Babu Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., 1989 PLJR 125, he submits that holding of licence by son in his personal capacity although his father is also holding a licence at the same time for the same commodity does not amount to violation of any of the conditions for the grant of licence. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, 2012 8 SCC 524, wherein Apex Court has held that high court should not entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein statutory appeal is provided, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority. He further submits that appeal shall be filed within 30 days from today, therefore, appeal should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

(2.) Accordingly, present petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file statutory appeal. If the appeal is filed within 30 days from today, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and appellate authority shall discuss all the points raised by the appellant in the memo of appeal.