Pawan Kumar Jha Alias Pawan Jha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Pawan Kumar Jha Alias Pawan Jha vs State of Bihar and ors.

Disposition Application Allowed Court Patna Decided Jan 10, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/133522

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/133522
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J.
Decided On: Jan 10, 1997
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 10941 of 1995
Subject: ;Commercial
Disposition: Application Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, Clause II - Cancellation of licence--After holding an enquiry--Without issuing and show cause notice or afforing an opportunity of hearing--Order of cancellation--Liable to be quashed--Case remanded for consideration afresh after issuing notice to licence peti...

Key legal issue: ;Commercial
Outcome / disposition: Application Allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pawan Kumar Jha Alias Pawan Jha

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Excerpt

bihar trade articles (licences unification) order, 1984, clause ii - cancellation of licence--after holding an enquiry--without issuing and show cause notice or afforing an opportunity of hearing--order of cancellation--liable to be quashed--case remanded for consideration afresh after issuing notice to licence petitioner. - .....the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to him of being head before passing the impugned order. specific statements have been made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this writ application which are as follows-19 that it is stated and submitted that before passing the impugned order cancelling the licence neither show cause/explanation was asked from the petitioner by the respondent concerned nor an opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner which is against the principles of natural justice.20. that it is submitted that the mandatory provision as contained in section 11 of the bihar trade articles (licences unification) order, 1984 has not been complied with as the licensee has not been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation of licence.2. a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state respondents, wherein the statement made in the aforesaid paragraphs, as quoted above, has not been denied and/or disputed even during the course of hearing of this writ application. it is submitted that the licence has been cancelled on the basis of the enquiry held by the respondent officers. in that enquiry also the petitioner has not been noticed.3. accordingly, without going in to the merits of this case i quash the orders dated 3.9.93, 27.12.93 and 30.10.94, as contained in annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively and remit the case back to the respondent sub divisional officer, who will issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter will pass appropriate order in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order of this court. this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Full Judgment

Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J.

1. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 3.9.93, 27.12.93 and 30.10.94, copy of which have been made Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively in this writ application, by which the licence granted to the petitioner under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification ) Order, 1984, is sought to be cancelled by the respondent authority. The petitioner has challenged the orders only on the ground that neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to him of being head before passing the impugned order. Specific statements have been made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this writ application which are as follows-

19 That it is stated and submitted that before passing the impugned order cancelling the licence neither show cause/explanation was asked from the petitioner by the respondent concerned nor an opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner which is against the principles of Natural Justice.

20. That it is submitted that the mandatory provision as contained in Section 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 has not been complied with as the licensee has not been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation of licence.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents, wherein the statement made in the aforesaid paragraphs, as quoted above, has not been denied and/or disputed even during the course of hearing of this writ application. It is submitted that the licence has been cancelled on the basis of the enquiry held by the respondent officers. In that enquiry also the petitioner has not been noticed.

3. Accordingly, without going in to the merits of this case I quash the orders dated 3.9.93, 27.12.93 and 30.10.94, as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively and remit the case back to the respondent Sub Divisional Officer, who will issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter will pass appropriate order in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Same Court & Year Patna · 1997 Same Parties Pawan Kumar Jha Alias Pawan Jha vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Commercial Same Judge Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J.

;Commercial