Hiramani Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shishir Suman, A.C. to A.A.G.-IV

¶14

Order No. 05 Dated: 10.03.2025

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 151 dated 19.03.2015 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi (the respondent no. 5), whereby the PDS License No. 02 of 2010 issued to ‘Shakti Mahila Mandal, Panchayat-Danekera, Block- Lapung, of which the petitioner is the President, has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) in PDS Appeal No. 01 R 15/2015-16 as well as the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) in P.D.S. Revision No. 70 of 2016.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the impugned order dated 19.03.2015 has been passed by the respondent no. 5 prior to coming into force of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2017 and at the time of passing of the same, the State Government had not issued

¶17

any control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act, 1955”) to regulate sale and distribution of the commodities relating to the Public Distribution Shops. Hence, the said order passed by the respondent no. 5 cancelling the PDS License of the petitioner being without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission, places reliance on the order/judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed in the case of Dilip Kumar Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and other analogous cases reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 124 and submits that the said issue has already been considered in those cases and the impugned orders cancelling the PDS Licenses of the said petitioners having been passed prior to coming into force of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2017, have been quashed being without jurisdiction.

¶19

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though contests the present writ petition on merit, yet he accepts that the issue of jurisdiction of the licensing authority (the respondent no. 5 herein), as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of not notifying any Control Order under Section 3 of the Act, 1955 from 2001, which was subsequently notified in the year 2017 i.e., the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2017, has been decided by this Court in the batch of writ petitions i.e., Dilip Kumar Ram (supra) and other analogous cases.

¶20

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering

¶21

2 W.P.(C) No. 1992 of 2023

¶22

that learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order/judgment dated 16.01.2025 rendered in the case of Dilip Kumar Ram (supra) and other analogous cases, the relevant paragraphs of the same are quoted:

¶23

“12. Though the respondents in their counter affidavits filed in the respective cases have also made factual averments denying and disputing the cases made out by the petitioners on the basis of the facts of each of those, however, keeping in view that learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the legal issue that the impugned orders passed by the licensing authorities cancelling the P.D.S licenses of the petitioners are without jurisdiction as the State of Jharkhand had not notified any Control Order pursuant to promulgation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 by the Central Government and the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017 was framed in the State of Jharkhand in the year 2017 after passing of the impugned orders by the licensing authorities, this Court does not intend to enter into the facts involved in the respective cases. It is an admitted position in these cases that all the impugned orders of cancellation of P.D.S licenses of the petitioners were passed prior to coming into force of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017.

¶24

14. Since it has been specifically stated in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on 07.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 4466 of 2018 that the State of Jharkhand had not notified any Control Order pursuant to promulgation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 by the Central Government and the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017 was framed and notified under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in exercise of power vested under clause 9 of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 in the year 2017 i.e after the dates of passing of the respective impugned orders cancelling the P.D.S licenses of the petitioners by the licensing authorities, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders cancelling the P.D.S licenses of the petitioners are without jurisdiction as it is a trite law that if any action is taken by an administrative/quasi-judicial

¶25

3 W.P.(C) No. 1992 of 2023

¶26

authority without any mandate of law, the same is a nullity as it exercises powers conferred by a statute.”

¶27

6. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the State of Jharkhand had not notified any Control Order pursuant to promulgation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 by the Central Government and the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017 was framed and notified under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in exercise of power vested under clause 9 of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 in the year 2017 after passing of the impugned orders by the licensing authorities.

¶28

7. In the present case, since the impugned order dated 19.03.2015 was passed by the respondent no. 5 prior to coming into force of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2017, this Court is of the view that the same was nullity in the eyes of law. Hence, the order as contained in memo no. 151 dated 19.03.2015 issued by the respondent no. 5 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 in PDS Appeal No. 01 R15/2015-16 as well as the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 in P.D.S. Revision No. 70 of 2016 are also quashed and set aside.

¶29

8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi (the respondent no. 5) who is the present licensing authority, is directed to restore the PDS license of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶30

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶31

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶32

Ritesh/

¶33

4 W.P.(C) No. 1992 of 2023

Hiramani Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiramani Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagendra Nath Mahto And Ors. Vs Ram Kumar Mahto And Ors.

Abodh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand.

New Advocates Clerk Association Jharkhand High Court through Its President Jitendra Kumar Malityar Vs the Registrar General Jharkhand High Court

Baratu Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand