Disposed

Dilip Kumar Ram @ Dilip Ram v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 Dec 2022CWJC/22420/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the selection of a private respondent as a PDS licensee alleging lack of computer ability. The court directed the Commissioner to examine a complaint within 30 days and pass a reasoned order within 60 days after hearing stakeholders, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to examine a complaint within 30 days and pass a reasoned order within 60 days after hearing stakeholders.

Dilip Kumar Ram @ Dilip Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22420 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Dilip Kumar Ram @ Dilip Ram S/o Sri Siyaram Ram, resident of VillageIthari, P.S. Ghailad, District- Madhepura.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

The District Level Selection Committee, Madhepura through its Chairman.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Madhepura.

¶9

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Madhepura.

¶10

The Block Supply Officer, Madhepura, Madhepura.

¶11

Dinesh Diwakar, son of Sri Kapildeo Rajak, resident of Village- Ithari, P.S. Ghailad, District- Madhepura.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal -SC 4 For the Respondent no. 6: Mr.Shyam Bahadur, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶17

Date : 15-12-2022

¶18

Heard Mr. Vijay Anand, learned Advocate for

¶19

the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Bahadur for the private respondent No. 6.

¶20

The petitioner takes umbrage at the selection

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.22420 of 2018 dt.15-12-2022 2/3

¶22

of respondent No. 6 as a licensee under the PDS scheme for the reason that he does not have computer ability, which fact gets reflected from the merit list prepared by the selection committee.

¶23

Regard being had to the nature of

¶24

controversy raised by the petitioner, and in view of the notification dated 21.07.2022, issued by the government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Clause-36 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, we direct that if a suitable complaint/representation is made within a period of 30 days before the Commissioner of the Division, he shall look into the matter and after hearing all the stakeholders, including respondent no. 6, shall pass a final order within a further period of 60 days, giving reason in support of the decision taken by him.

¶25

The order so passed by the authority shall be made available to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.22420 of 2018 dt.15-12-2022 3/3

¶27

forthwith.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶30

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶31

Sonali/-

¶32

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	19.12.2022
Transmission Date	NA

Dilip Kumar Ram @ Dilip Ram v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Ram @ Dilip Ram 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

Mahaboudh Jan Swasthaya Evem Sarvangin Vikas Kendra, Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Chandra @ Guddu Baba Vs The State of Bihar

Bibha Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Devendra Harijan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Niranjan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.