AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the Writ petition for the following reliefs:
"1.For quashing of the order dated 15.06.2023, passed by the learned Court of Divisional Commissioner, Patna in connection with BTPDS Control Revision-34/2021 (Smt. Indu Devi@Indu Kumari V/s The State of Bihar).
2.That the petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned Collector, Nalanda-Cum-Appellate Authority, passed in Supply Case No. 10 of 2020 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 32 (1) of the Bihar Targeted P.D.S (Control) order 2016 thereafter to be referred as Control Order has been rejected.
3.That the petitioner also prays for quashing of the order contained in memo No. 650 dated 03.09.2020 issued under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgir by which the license of the petitioner bearing No. 158/2007 has been cancelled due to allegation against the Petitioner that he involved in irregularity in distribution of food grains and further allegation that the petitioner has charged higher rate on the distributed food grains.
4.That the petitioner further prays for a direction upon the concern respondents to restore the license of the petitioner bearing License No. 157/2007 for running the public distribution shop at Panchayat Lodipur, Block- Rajgir, District for any other and Nalanda, relief/reliefs for which this Hon'ble Court may in the facts and find fit and proper circumstances of the case."
At the outset, the Learned counsel for the respondent State draws the attention of this Court to Rule 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
For better appreciation of the facts of the case, Rule 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"32.(vii) The Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the department may call for the records related to the order passed under the provisions of this Order by the Divisional Commissioner or the District Officer or the licensing authority or the Sub Divisional Officer suo moto or upon a representation by someone, and if he is satisfied that the Divisional Commissioner or the District Officer or the licensing authority or the Sub Divisional Officer
(a)has exercised such powers which are not entrusted to him,
(b)has exercised his powers illegally without considering the facts of the case,
(c)has failed in use of his powers, he may pass an order which he thinks fit."
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel for the respondents.
Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of filing a representation before the Principal Secretary, under Rule 32 (vii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 against the impugned order. The present Writ petition is disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Principal Secretary challenging the order of the Revisional/Appellate Authority and order of cancellation withing a period of one months from the date of receipt of this order. On such representation being made, the Principal Secretary shall pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with law.
Further, if there is any delay in preferring the representation, the authority shall liberally construe the limitation period as the petitioner has approached this Court within time.
It is needless to mention that before passing any order the petitioner shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Any order passed shall be communicated to the party.
With the above observations, the present Writ petition stands disposed of.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.