Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Jun 2013CWJC/16299/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the non-selection for a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership, arguing his village required one while a dealership near a relation was allotted. The court noted selection is at the Panchayat level, not village level, and applied a 2007 notification clarifying that elected representatives' disqualification does not extend to relations.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed; the selection of Mr. Pankaj Kumar is upheld, and no direction is issued to the petitioner.

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16299 of 2010

¶3

====================================================== Sanjay Kumar S/O Sri Satyanarayan Singh R/O Vill.- Ambari, P/SShokhopur Sarai In The District Of Sheikhpura .... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Of Bihar through Its Principal Secretary Food and Supply Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura

¶6

The Block Development Officer, Shekhopur Sarai Block, Sheikhpura

¶7

The Marketing Officer, Sheikhpura

¶8

The Block Supply Officer, Sheikhpura 7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar S/O Sri Charitra Singh R/O Vill.- Ahmadpur-Chhema, P.S.- Shekhopur Sarai, Distt.- Sheikhpura

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the State : Mr. Rabindra Kr. Choubey, SC 8 For Respondent No.7 : Mr Neeraj Kr. Singh Mr Sanjay Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER

¶11

7 21-06-2013 Petitioner was one of the hopefuls for allotment of a PDS dealership for village Ambari in the district of Sheikhpura but since his hopes have been dashed by non- selection, he has chosen to approach this Court seeking cancellation of the selection so made as well as may be a direction in his favour.

¶12

So far as direction in his favour is concerned, no direction can be issued because selection has to be made in the mechanism, which has been laid down in the Control Order by the body so constituted in this regard. The Court will, therefore, confine itself to the issue of the selection, which has already been made.

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.16299 of 2010 (7) dt.21-06-2013

¶14

2/5

¶15

Stand of the petitioner is that the village Ambari has a population of more than 5000. The Government as a policy had taken a decision that a population of 1350 for urban areas and 1900 for rural areas should form the benchmark for opening of such PDS dealership. Since the village in question has a population of more than 5000, there is requirement of almost three PDS dealership but no selection or appointment has been made for the said village. The selection committee has appointed a dealer for yet another village, which is known as Ahmadpur Chhema.

¶16

Some vacancies had fallen for appointment of PDS dealers. One was under reserved category and the other under general category, at the level of the Panchayat and not village. Since Panchayat is the unit where selection and appointments have to be made, the location of the PDS dealership thus is dependent upon the decision so taken. The grievance of the petitioner that village having a population of more than 5000 should have been chosen for selection and opening of a PDS dealership, seems to be misplaced. His participation is in terms of the advertisement and his selection has to be within the term of the advertisement and not on the basis of an interpretation, he would like to give to the advertisement.

¶17

So far as selection of a reserved candidate is concerned,

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.16299 of 2010 (7) dt.21-06-2013

¶19

3/5

¶20

petitioner can never have a grievance on the same because he admittedly was an applicant under general category. The selection made by the selection committee was not for a village but for the Panchayat Ambari. The selection committee has already taken note of PDS dealership working in the village Ambari. Therefore, another PDS was not required to be opened there. The dealership has been offered to a person belonging to Ahmedpur- Chhema, therefore, the stand of the petitioner is of no avail. The selection cannot be interfered with.

¶21

The other limb of challenge to the selection is that the petitioner happens to be brother of Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti and he has incurred disqualification from selection in terms of the government rules because no relation of such elected representative can be considered for appointment as PDS dealer. Above submission has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing for private respondent based on the circular issued by the State of Bihar and the PDS Control Order 2001 and the corresponding notification dated 20.2.2007. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Clause 2.6 to the Control Order, which is reproduced herein below :-

¶22

“2.6. Shops shall not be allotted to following people

¶23

( a) Shops shall not be allotted to more than

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.16299 of 2010 (7) dt.21-06-2013

¶25

4/5

¶26

one member of a joint family. Following members shall be considered under the definition of family; Mother, Father, Brother, Sister in law, Wife, Son, Daughter in law, Step Brother. It shall come into force on the date of its notification.

¶27

(b) Elected Mukhia, Sarpanch, Ward Member, Panchayat Samiti member, Zila Parish member, M.L.A., M.P.,, Member of Municipal Corporation and Municipality till their tenure.

¶28

(c) Flour Mill owner

¶29

(d) Minor, Lunatic or is of unsound mine and undischarged insolvent

¶30

(e) Applicant shall not be given licence if he/she is finally convicted under essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955)

¶31

(f) If applicant holds the post of profit in the Government .

¶32

He has also pointed out yet another clarificatory notification issued by the Department on 9.3.2007 to Clause 2.6 of 2001 Control Order, which clarifies that the elected representatives, whose names figure therein, are disqualified from holding a PDS licence during the tenure of their office and not their relations. Stand of the learned counsel for the private respondent is that Clause 2.6(a) cannot be read into Clause 2.6(b). They are two different provisions talking about two different

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.16299 of 2010 (7) dt.21-06-2013

¶34

5/5

¶35

situations. The same cannot be merged and read as one provision for the benefit of argument of the petitioner.

¶36

There could have been an occasion to consider the submission of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the disqualification of the private respondent provided the corresponding clarificatory notification of March 2007 was not in place. Since the provision has been clarified by the State Government itself, in the opinion of this Court, there is no ambiguity in such provision. The larger family does not come within the ambit of disqualification.

¶37

In view of the above, writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.

¶38

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Smt.Shabnam Das Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

Vinay Kumar Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Parth Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopal Giri and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ishwari Prasad Vs Ganesh Prasad