Meena Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Ms. Kumari Rashmi, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Suraj Prakash, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) "To quash/set aside the order contained in memo no. 249 dated 12.11.2014 issued under the pen and signature of respondent no. 3, whereby and whereunder, the public distribution system dealership of the petitioner has been suspended.

(ii) During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Public Distribution System dealership in Village- Nagwa, Panchayat- Bahera, being License No. 01/93 in Barhi sub-division, Hazaribagh district.

(iii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner."

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by suspension of Public Distribution Licence by the impugned order and in spite of filing reply, no order has been passed by the Respondent No. 3.

Counsel for the respondents submits that the instant writ petition has been filed against suspension of dealership and the petitioner by the same order was directed to respond to the allegations. He also submits that pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2014, the petitioner has already responded through reply dated 26.11.2014 on which it appears that no order has been passed.

Counsel for the respondents further submits that accordingly, the matter may be remitted to the District Supply Officer for passing an appropriate order as the District Supply Officer is the appropriate authority for the purpose.

After hearing the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that PDS license of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 12.11.2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his PDS license be not terminated. Pursuant to this, the petitioner has already filed a response vide reply dated 26.11.2014 before the Respondent No. 3. As submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, no order has been passed pursuant to reply dated 26.11.2014. However as per submission of the respondent, the competent authority to consider the reply of the petitioner is concerned District Supply Officer.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Supply Officer along with a representation enclosing a copy of the order, and reply dated 26.11.2014 for redressal of her grievances. The concerned District Supply Officer is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.