Dismissed

Ravindra Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Jun 2019CWJC/3265/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of a Fair Price Shop license. The petitioner, an existing dealer, argued the allotment violated population-based caps under the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016. The High Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the order only mandates minimum requirements, permitting more shops for public interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ application challenging the license grant was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Ravindra Singh Vs The State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3265 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ravindra Singh, aged about 66 years, Male, Son of Late Dineshwar Singh Resident of Village- Gauridih Post-Raunia, Police Station-Barari, DistrictKatihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Collector, Katihar Bihar

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar Bihar

¶9

The District Supply Officer, Katihar Bihar

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Barari, District Katihar

¶11

The Block Supply Officer,Barari, District Katihar

¶12

Santosh Kumar Das aged about 23 years, Male, Son of Mahendra Das Resident of Raunia, Police Station-Korha, District-Katihar

¶13

Anupriya, aged about 20 years, Female, Wife of Sikandar Rai Resident of Nishara, Police Station-Korha, District-Katihar

¶14

... ... Respondents

¶15

======================================================

¶16

Appearance :

¶17

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nasim Yahya For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (SC-4)

¶18

======================================================

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶20

2 26-06-2019 Petitioner, who is himself a P.D.S. dealer, has moved

¶21

this court questioning the grant of license to private respondent no. 8 on the ground that there cannot be more than 5 P.D.S. shops in Raunia Panchayat. He is afraid that his consumers/beneficiaries may be reduced because of such allotment.

¶22

Referring to the provisions of Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Control Order, 2016’), learned counsel submits that according to the

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.3265 of 2019(2) dt.26-06-2019 2/3

¶24

Control Order, 2016 there should be one P.D.S. shop against the population of 1900. The total population of the Raunia Panchayat is 12421, therefore in the ratio of population of the Raunia Panchayat there should be hardly six P.D.S. shops.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State submits that the grant of two new P.D.S. shops is not at all in contravention of the provisions of the Control Order, 2016 as the Control Order 2016 only provides the minimum requirement of providing at least one P.D.S. shop against the population of 1900. It is submitted that there is no bar in the Control Order, 2016 to provide more P.D.S. Shop on a lesser population if it is so required considering the hardships which are being faced by the beneficiaries in different areas. It is submitted that the larger public interest cannot be outweighed by taking care of the individual interest of the petitioner.

¶26

This court is in full agreement with the submission of the State. The petitioner in the present case has no locus standi to maintain this writ application. This court is of the considered opinion that what has been provided in the Control Order, 2016 is only the minimum requirement of one P.D.S. shop against the population of 1900, this cannot be taken as a bar against the respondent authorities in providing more number of P.D.S.

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.3265 of 2019(2) dt.26-06-2019 3/3

¶28

shops if it is so required in larger public interest.

¶29

No illegalities or infirmities may be found in the

¶30

impugned action of the respondent authorities. The writ application being devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed.

¶31

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶32

Rajeev/-

¶33

Ravindra Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Singh 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

Naushad Ali Vs District Consumer Forum, Siwan Through Its Chairman and Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun kumar srivastava and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Pawan Paswan Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Reena Kumari Vs The State of Bihar