RAM LAKHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5432 of 2011 dismissing the writ petition, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant has been allotted a P.D.S. shop in the year 1998 vide Licence No. 14 of 1998 at Nagar Untari, Garhwa and was running the said shop. Based on the alleged complaint from the villagers vide order dated 9.04.2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa issued show cause notice to the appellant whereby his P.D.S. licence was suspended with immediate effect and the appellant was directed to submit his reply as to why his licence be not cancelled on the ground of violation of terms of the licence. The appellant submitted his reply to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa on 17.4.2010. Not being satisfied with the reply of the appellant, vide order dated 20.04.2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa cancelled the P.D.S. licence of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa dated 20.04.2010, the appellant preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa vide order dated 31.08.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

(2.) Challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa and also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, the appellant filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 5432 of 2011, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.01.2012 holding that the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority have concurrently found that the appellant has breached the conditions of the licence. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellant's contentions give rise to the factual dispute, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Writ Court. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rishi Pallav, J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondents-State.