IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1563 of 2009 1. SHEO NARAYAN SINGH S/O SARJU SINGH R/O MEDANIPUR, P.S.- DINARA, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR ROHTAS 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BIKRAMGANJ, ROHTASH 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER DINARA BLOCK, ROHTASH ----------- 4 20.1.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. This L.P.A. arises out of the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.16115 of 2006 filed by the petitioner who is appellant herein. The appellant is aggrieved by the order 17.11.2000 passed by the Sub. Divisional Officer in the capacity of the licensing authority under Public Distribution System and also the consequential orders dated 3.6.2001 and 26.10.2004 respectively. The appellant prays for to quash the orders passed by both the authorities as stated supra. The allegation against the appellant is that the petitioner being a dealer had unloaded the food-grains on the place other than the business premises Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to heavy rainy season the food-grains were shifted to other place and to this effect intimation was already given to the Block Supply Officer, respondent no.5 in this appeal within 72 hours. It is 2 further contended that even though the appellant has to intimate with regard to lifting of the food-grains to the S.D.O within 72 hours, but due to urgency such intimation was given to the Block Supply Officer which is also the governmental authority of civil supply. It is also further contended that as the authority has affected the seizure within 72 hours from the time the stocks have been shifted in a place other than the premises of business, hence the appellant could not be found fault with. It has further been contended that on the similar facts this Court also allowed writ petition of another dealer being C.W.J.C. No.15693 of 2004. However, the learned Single Judge has not accepted the aforesaid plea and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has not intimated to the appropriate officer, i.e, the Sub. Divisional Officer within 72 hours and hence the present appeal is filed. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has held that the case of the appellant herein is not similar to the fact of the case of the other dealer whose writ application being C.W.J.C. No.15693 of 2004 has been allowed. Here the appellant has intimated to the Block Supply Officer with regard to storage of food-grains in the place other than the business premises, although the appellant has explained the reason stating that due to rainy season the food-grains has to be lifted to other place and in this regard intimation has been given within 72 hours. The learned Single Judge has further held that the appellant has not followed 3 the statutory provisions. But however we have to observe that as seizure was affected within 72 hours of storage of grains, we accept the contention of the counsel for appellant as the appellant could not be found fault with for his inaction in not intimating to the S.D.O. as he was intimating to B.S.O. After having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as the appellant has intimated about lifting of grains within 72 hours to the Block Supply Officer, it cannot be said that the appellant has violated the statutory provision. Accordingly, this L.P.A. is allowed and the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Abhay Kumar (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)