IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6493 of 2012 ----- Anant Singh, S/o Late Tapeshwar Singh, Village Kendua, P.S. Chouparan, District Hazaribagh. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Barhi, District Hazaribagh. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to GP-VI ----- Order No.09 Date: 24.03.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.178 dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner’s PDS licence was cancelled. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 3rd July, 2008 passed by the respondent no.4 in Case No.01 of 2008, wherein it was held that licence of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 11th June, 2009 passed by the respondent no.3 in Licence Cancellation Appeal Case No.73 of 2008, whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. It has also been prayed for quashing the order dated 16th August, 2011 passed by the respondent no.2 in Revision Case No.41 of 2011, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to restore his PDS licence with respect to Kendua, Chauparan bearing Licence No.18 of 1985. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In addition to cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner vide impugned order as contained in memo no.178 dated 27th April, 2007, an F.I.R. was also lodged against him being Chauparan P.S. Case No.41 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.1171 of 2007 dated 19th March, 2007 for the offences under Sections 414, 406, 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Essential Commodity Act. 4. Since status of the trial of the said case was not on record, this Court vide order dated 16th January, 2025 directed the counsel for the petitioner to seek instruction with respect to status of the said case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having not been able to apprise this Court regarding status of the said case, this Court vide order dated 25th February, 2025 called for a report from the concerned court below regarding status of trial of the said case. In compliance of the order dated 25th February, 2025, the status report of Chauparan P.S. Case No.41 of 2007 has been submitted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (I/c), Hazaribagh vide letter dated 11th March, 2025. 6. On perusal of the said report, it appears that vide order dated 23rd March, 2009, charge was framed against the petitioner under Sections 420 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act and the case was fixed for evidence on 8th April, 2009. Subsequently, on 25th February, 2013 the case was fixed for further evidence, but no step was taken by the accused (petitioner herein) and, accordingly, his bail bond was cancelled and -2- W.P.(C) No.6493 of 2012 non-bailable warrant was issued against him on 27th February, 2013. Thereafter, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were issued against him on 11th July, 2017 and 8th May, 2018, respectively. It has further been reported that since the petitioner did not appear before the said Court, he was declared as absconder and a permanent warrant was issued against him on 6th December, 2018. The case was accordingly consigned to the district record room. 7. Considering the aforesaid report submitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (I/c), Hazaribagh and particularly keeping in view that the petitioner has been declared absconder in the said case and a permanent warrant has been issued against him on 6th December, 2018, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed by him is not worth consideration. 8. It is well settled principle of law that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course and in exercising the extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction, a writ Court should look into the conduct of the party who is invoking writ jurisdiction. It is of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hand. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/ -3- W.P.(C) No.6493 of 2012