IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5440 of 2010 1. KUBER PRASAD S/O LATE YAMUNA PRASAD R/O VILLAGE- REVEEL GANJ, P.S -REVEEL GANJ, DISTRICT- SARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN. 4. THE SUB -DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHAPRA SADAR, SARAN. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, SARAN. 6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, REVEEL GANJ, SARAN. For the Petitioner:- Mr. Khurshid Alam, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, S.C.-15 & Mr. Abdus Shakoor, A.C. to S.C.-15 ----------- 05. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Saran At Chapra and the subsequent order dated 8.3.2010 by which his Public Distribution System license has been suspended and he has been directed to deposit Rs. 48,038/-. It is submitted that the petitioner came to this Court originally in C.W.J.C. No. 9369 of 2009 with the grievance that on account of non-supply of coupons he is unable to supply food grain articles meant for distribution under the Antadoya Yojana to the beneficiaries and has highlighted that articles are lying in the godown. The counter affidavit blamed the petitioner. The Writ Court declined to go into the allegations and counter allegations and directed the Divisional Commissioner to look into the 2 matter, fix responsibility and take appropriate action against the erring. The petitioner claims to have filed his representation on 17.9.2009 enclosing the order of the Court. He asserts in paragraph-18 of the present application that when nothing further transpired he filed M.J.C. No. 13 of 2010 on 5.1.2010 for initiating contempt proceedings. Thereafter the leaned Commissioner issued notice to him on 3.2.2010 to appear before him for hearing. The notice did not state any date for appearance and hearing. It is asserted from paragraph-18 of the writ application that the notice was received by the petitioner on 4.2.2010. The next day i.e. 5.2.2010 was a Gazetted holiday and therefore the petitioner appeared on 6.2.2010 and furnished all relevant materials. The petitioner on 8.3.2010 received two orders that his license had been suspended and he was directed to pay the aforesaid amount based on the final order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 5.2.2010. Therefore the petitioner had been denied the opportunity to defend himself. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order dated 8.3.2010 bearing no. 255 states that the Divisional Commissioner has passed the order on 5.3.2010. Therefore 5.2.2010 being a Gazetted holiday is of no relevance. If the petitioner did not appear on 5.2.2010 3 considering the urgency of the matter as this Court had directed expedited disposal, he has only himself to blame. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not deny the submission of the representation by the petitioner along with order dated 7.9.2009. Likewise, it is not in dispute that the respondents were galvanized into the action only after institution of the contempt application. The notice dated 3.2.2010 of the Divisional Commissioner fixed no date for hearing. The petitioner claims to have appeared on 6.2.2010 asserting that 5.2.2010 was a Gazetted holiday. All these facts have not been denied in the counter affidavit which simply states that they need no. The petitioner has brought on record the original copy of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. From the endorsement at the end, it is more than apparent that the date is 5/2. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not even asserted that the Divisional Commissioner has not passed any order on 5.2.2010. They have not considered it necessary to bring on record the original order passed by the Divisional Commissioner which may have revealed as to whether the order was passed on 5.2.2010 on 5.3.2010 as mentioned in the order dated 8.3.2010 being no. 255. In the nature of the controversy created between the parties the failure of the respondents to deny the specific assertion of facts with regard to dates, 4 this Court is left completely dissatisfied of fairness on part of the Divisional Commissioner in passing order. The notice dated 3.2.2010 was itself not in consonance with law when it specified no date for hearing. The order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 5.2.2010 is therefore set aside. Consequently, the orders dated 8.3.2010 suspending his license and directing him to deposit money also becomes non-sustainable and are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner to fix a fresh date of hearing specifying in notice to be issued by him, and then hear the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands allowed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)