Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ainul Haque Vs. the State of Bihar and ors

Ainul Haque vs The State of Bihar and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 12, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/974653

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ainul Haque

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna civil writ jurisdiction case no.129 o”1. ainul haque son of late haroon mian resident of sugauli, ward no. -7, police station - sugauli, district - east champaran at motihari petitioner. versus 1. the state of bihar 2. the district magistrate - cum - the district collector, east champaran, motihari 3. the sub divisional officer, motihari sadar, east champaran - respondents”12. 1.2012 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state. the petitioner has challenged the order contained in memo no. 521, dated 26.8.2011 by which the p.d.s. licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on three grounds mentioned in the order. this court observes that the order aforesaid does not take into ac count the show cause filed by the petitioner. counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled in the final order were not leveled against him while issuing the show cause. the petitioner would be given liberty to reply to the allegations leveled in the final order. in a quasi judicial proceeding it is expected that the authority concerned should give reason for coming to a particular conclusion. to pass an order, without even referring to the defence raised on behalf of the petitioner is unfair and not justifiable. in the result i quash the order, dated 26.8.2011 and remand the matter back to the subdivisional officer, sadar, motihari to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. it is made clear that the quashing of the order impugned would not mean that 2 the petitioner would be allowed to run his business. this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the subdivisional officer, sadar, motihari within a month failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed. the subdivisional officer will dispose of the matter within three months. haque ( sheema ali khan, j .)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.129 o”

1. Ainul Haque Son Of Late Haroon Mian Resident Of Sugauli, Ward No. -7, Police Station - Sugauli, District - East Champaran At Motihari Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate - Cum - The District Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar, East Champaran - Respondents”

12. 1.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in memo no. 521, dated 26.8.2011 by which the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on three grounds mentioned in the order. This court observes that the order aforesaid does not take into ac count the show cause filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled in the final order were not leveled against him while issuing the show cause. The petitioner would be given liberty to reply to the allegations leveled in the final order. In a quasi judicial proceeding it is expected that the authority concerned should give reason for coming to a particular conclusion. To pass an order, without even referring to the defence raised on behalf of the petitioner is unfair and not justifiable. In the result I quash the order, dated 26.8.2011 and remand the matter back to the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It is made clear that the quashing of the order impugned would not mean that 2 the petitioner would be allowed to run his business. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari within a month failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed. The Subdivisional Officer will dispose of the matter within three months. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial