Rameshankar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

constitution of india, 1950 - article 226--writ petition--maintainability of--against suspension of arms licence--arms licence of petitioner suspended without show-cause notice and without affording opportunity--same was proved--held, writ petition against suspension of licence would be maintainable and impugned order liable to be quashed. - constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - choubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the arms licences of the petitioners have been suspended without even giving them any show-cause notice and affording opportunity before issuance of the said order, which is completely in the teeth of the well-settled law in numerous decisions including the one in the case of jagdamba singh v.radha mohan prasad, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. it is submitted by mr. choubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the arms licences of the petitioners have been suspended without even giving them any show-cause notice and affording opportunity before issuance of the said order, which is completely in the teeth of the well-settled law in numerous decisions including the one in the case of jagdamba singh v. state of bihar 1995 (1) bur 883; 1993(2) pur 107. in support of this, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that no notice was given and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before the order of suspension was passed.3. a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. the said paragraph of the writ petition has been answered in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit wherein there is no denial of the said statement of the petitioners.4. under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders, contained in annexures 3 and 4 to the extent whereby the licences of the petitioners have been suspended, are hereby quashed. however, this order shall not come in the way of the authority from proceeding further in the matter, in accordance with law.