Sabitri Devi Vs. Food Supply

Sabitri Devi vs Food Supply

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Dec 19, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972361

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/972361
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Dec 19, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sabitri Devi

Respondent

Food Supply

Excerpt

.....is that the impugned orderhas been passed without giving any notice informing thereasonsandwithoutaffordinganyopportunitytorepresentagainst thesame. it has been submitted that the impugned order has beenpassedinviolationofclause11ofthebihartradearticles(license andunification)order,1984[hereinafterreferredtoasthesaidorder] as well as the principle of natural justice and is ab initio void. the impugnedorderisliabletobequashedbythiscourt. learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted thatthelicensewasgrantedtothepetitioneroncompassionateground underthepolicydecisionofthegovernmentintheyear2010.herlicense cannotbecancelledwithoutgivinganynoticeinformingthereasonsor withoutaffordinganyopportunityofrepresentationagainstthesame. learned j.c to s.c.iii, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contested the writ petition. it has been stated, inter alia, that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order. it was foundthatlicensesweregrantedcontrarytothepolicydecisionandthe provisions of law. those licenses were reviewed and were found fit for cancellation. the petitioner's license was found to be illegally granted andisaccordinglycancelledbytheimpugnedorder. heardlearnedcounselfortheparties.onperusal oftheimpugnedorder,ifindthatthepetitionerslicensehasbeen cancelledbyasummaryorder.beforecancellingthepetitionerslicense, nonoticewasgiventothepetitionerinformingthereasonsandaffording her opportunity to represent against the same. clause 11 of the said order,1984providesforgivingreasonableopportunityofrepresentation to the person before cancelling his license. cancellation of the petitionerslicensevisits herwithcivilconsequence.inthat view also, .2. cancellation of the petitioners license without giving her notice and opportunity of representation/hearing is violative of the principle of naturaljustice. consideringtheabove,thiswritpetitionisallowed.the impugned order dated 15th april, 2012 passed by the subdivisional.....

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P.(C)No.6307of2012 SabitriDevi. ...Petitioner. Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. ...Respondents. CORAM:HONBLEMR.JUSTICENARENDRANATHTIWARI ForthePetitioner : Mr.R.S.Mazumdar,Sr.Advocate FortheState : J.C.toS.C.III 03/19.12.2012: Inthiswritpetition,thepetitionerhasprayedforquashingtheorder dated15th April,2012(Annexure3)passedbytheSubdivisionalOfficer, Dhanbad,wherebythepetitionersP.D.Slicensehasbeencancelled. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orderhas been passed without giving any notice informing thereasonsandwithoutaffordinganyopportunitytorepresentagainst thesame. It has been submitted that the impugned order has beenpassedinviolationofClause11oftheBiharTradeArticles(License andUnification)Order,1984[hereinafterreferredtoasthesaidOrder] as well as the principle of natural justice and is ab initio void. The impugnedorderisliabletobequashedbythisCourt. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted thatthelicensewasgrantedtothepetitioneroncompassionateground underthepolicydecisionoftheGovernmentintheyear2010.Herlicense cannotbecancelledwithoutgivinganynoticeinformingthereasonsor withoutaffordinganyopportunityofrepresentationagainstthesame. Learned J.C to S.C.III, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contested the writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order. It was foundthatlicensesweregrantedcontrarytothepolicydecisionandthe provisions of law. Those licenses were reviewed and were found fit for cancellation. The petitioner's license was found to be illegally granted andisaccordinglycancelledbytheimpugnedorder. Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties.Onperusal oftheimpugnedorder,Ifindthatthepetitionerslicensehasbeen cancelledbyasummaryorder.Beforecancellingthepetitionerslicense, nonoticewasgiventothepetitionerinformingthereasonsandaffording her opportunity to represent against the same. Clause 11 of the said Order,1984providesforgivingreasonableopportunityofrepresentation to the person before cancelling his license. Cancellation of the petitionerslicensevisits herwithcivilconsequence.Inthat view also, .2. cancellation of the petitioners license without giving her notice and opportunity of representation/hearing is violative of the principle of naturaljustice. Consideringtheabove,thiswritpetitionisallowed.The impugned order dated 15th April, 2012 passed by the Subdivisional Officer,Dhanbad(Annexure3)isquashed. However, if there is any legal justification for proceedingagainstthepetitioner'slicense,therespondentsareatliberty toproceedinaccordancewithlaw. (NarendraNathTiwari,J.) s.b.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2012 Same Parties Sabitri Devi vs Food Supply Same Subject Education