Disposed

Sarda Mahila Mandal Represented Through Secretary Piyaso Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Nov 2019WPC/2671/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-decision on a PDS license application. Due to internal disputes among the self-help group members cancelling the license and allegations of irregularities, the Court held no direction was served and directed the Deputy Commissioner to ensure no public suffers due to the shop's probable closure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, to look into the matter to ensure people in the area do not suffer due to the closure of the shop.

Sarda Mahila Mandal Represented Through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 2671 of 2016

¶3

Sarda Mahila Mandal through Secretary, Piyaso Devi.…… Petitioner Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh. 3.Block Development Officer, Gola, Dist-Ramgarh. 4.Block Extension Officer Women, Gola, Dist-Ramgarh. 5.Block Supply Officer, Gola, Dist-Ramgarh. 6.Sabitri Devi, Wife of Ramdas Mahto. 7.Koshil Devi, wife of Manjil Mahto. 8.Basni Devi wife of Sriram Mahto. …… Respondents

¶5

---------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶7

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravi Das, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Abhay Prakash, A.C to AAG. -----------

¶8

4/Dated: 13^th November, 2019

¶9

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondent no.2 to take final decision upon the representation dated 08.03.2016 and grant licence to run Public Distribution System shop in the name of Sarda Mahila Mandal for village Patratu, Gola or in alternative to take action against the wrong doer i.e. erstwhile Secretary Sabitri Devi.

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that to run Public Distribution System licence has been granted in the name of Sarda Mahila Mandal, a group of women of self-help formed on 06.10.2002, in which the respondents Sabitri Devi was the President while Koshil Devi was the Secretary and the respondent Basni Devi was the treasurer but due to internal dispute and allegations and counter allegations, the licence has been cancelled by the competent authority.

¶11

The petitioner, who is claiming to be the Secretary of the Mahila Mandal, has made allegation to grant licence of Public Distribution System to run a shop under the said scheme for distribution of articles to the persons living below the poverty line but the same is not being decided, therefore, the present writ petition.

¶12

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein stand inter alia has been taken that the Government by virtue of scheme floated sometime in the year 2006 has decided to grant licence in favour of self-help

¶13

group on priority basis and in case of non-availability of self-help group consisting of the women members, the other consideration to grant licence in favour of an individual can be taken, considering the application made by Sarda Mahila Mandal, the licence which has been granted to the shop for the Public Distribution System but due to internal dispute among the members of the Mahila Mandal, the distribution system since was not properly operating, the licencing authority has taken decision to cancel it and further the people of the area may not put in difficulty as allocated the licence to other PDS dealer.

¶14

The further submission has been made for disposal of the representation dated 08.03.2016 which cannot be decided in favour of the petitioner in view of specific stand as has been taken in the counter affidavit of internal dispute amongst the members, the licence cannot be granted. 4. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, has gathered therefrom that the Government, in order to provide food grain articles and other materials to be supplied under the control rate, has come out with a decision sometime in the year 2006 to grant licence to group known as self-help group and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner Sarda Mahila Mandal through its President has made an application for grant of licence under PDS and taking into consideration the fulfilment of requirement as per the policy decision, the licence has been granted.

¶15

Subsequent to granting of the licence, the complaint has been made about the internal dispute among the members which resulted into cancellation of licence by taking decision by the licensing authority.

¶16

The petitioner, who claims to be the newly elected Secretary, has filed this writ petition on the strength of Annexure-1, agitating the grievance that the petitioner has made a representation on 08.03.2016 to grant licence of Public Distribution System but having not been decided the present writ petition has been filed.

¶17

The question herein is that when there is internal dispute amongst the members of office bearers of the Sarda Mahila Mandal and considering the said circumstances, if the licence has been cancelled by the licensing authority, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed, it is for the reason that the concept of extending the licence of Sarda Mahila Mandal for

¶18

smooth distribution of food grain articles and more particularly to deal with situation of black marketing since the individuals in whose favour the licence was earlier been granted who indulged in case of black marketing having no control of anyone, save and except the raid and inspection if conducted by the inspecting authority, and if the licence would be granted in favour of a group, there would be check and balance amongst the members itself.

¶19

It appears from Annexure-3 that serious allegation of irregularities have been levelled against the erstwhile office bearers which reflects that there is internal dispute among the members themselves and in that view of the matter, if the petitioner claiming to be the subsequent office bearers and if the licence would be granted, then there would be every likelihood of the allegations and counter allegations again and in that event there is no possibility of proper distribution of food grain articles and in that situation the spirit of the policy decision would be frustrated.

¶20

This Court, taking the aforesaid fact into consideration, is of the view that even if any direction would be passed upon the respondent authority to dispose of the representation, no purpose would be served since there is dispute amongst the members itself.

¶21

Simultaneously, this Court is also concerned with the people of the area that they may not be put in difficulty since as has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the area where the shop in question was granted licence, has been attached to the other adjacent public shop pertaining to Public Distribution System and if such arrangement would be allowed to be continued, the local people would suffer.

¶22

Keeping that fact into consideration, this Court, hereby direct the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh to look into the matter, so that people at large of the area who are getting food grain article from the shop in question may not suffer.

¶23

The writ petition accordingly, disposed of.

¶24

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶25

Saket/-

Sarda Mahila Mandal Represented Through Secretary Piyaso Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarda Mahila Mandal Represented Through Secretary Piyaso Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Usha Martin Limited Through Its President Mining Division Sri Karun Kant Dave Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Tapan Kumar Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Manoj Kumar Rajhans Vs the Deoghar Municipality through Its Town Commissioner

Kunjlal Mistry Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kedar Nath Sharma Vs Honble Minister Department of Agriculture and Husbandary and Co. Operative

Bhola Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand