Disposed

Indrajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jan 2023CWJC/21790/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed Divisional Commissioner to decide within 60 days if a Public Distribution System licensee should be retained despite a pending court challenge regarding her eligibility based on ward of residence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Divisional Commissioner to hear stakeholders and decide within 60 days whether license should be retained and supply resumed after 15 days for filing complaint.

Indrajit Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18047 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Sanju Kumari, Wife of Mukesh Sah, Resident of Village- Jaluvar, P.S., District-Madhepura.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate Madhepura.

¶7

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer Madhepura, District Patna.

¶9

The Block Supply Officer Singhaheshwar, District-Madhepura.

¶10

Indrajit Kumar, Son of Bijendra Mandal, Resident of Village-Jaluwar Ward no.7, Panchayat Manpur, P.S.-Singheshwar, District-Madhepura.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

with

¶14

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21790 of 2018

¶15

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

¶16

Indrajit Kumar, Son of Bijendra Mandal, Resident of Village-Jaluwar Ward No.7, Panchayat Manpur, Block Singheshwar, Police Station- Gamhariya, District-Madhepura.

¶17

... ... Petitioner/s

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State Of Bihar

¶20

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

¶21

The Collector of District Madhepura.

¶22

The District Co-Operative Officer, Madhepura.

¶23

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Madhepura.

¶24

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura.

¶25

The District Supply Officer, Madhepura

¶26

The Block Supply Officer Singheshwar Block, District- Madhepura.

¶27

Smt. Sanju Kumari, Wife of Shri Mukesh Sah, Resident of Village-Lalu Tokan, Ward No.1, Panchayat Dular, Piparhi, Police Station- Gamhariya, District- Madhepura.

¶28

... ... Respondent/s

¶29

=================== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Ca	=================================== se No. 18047 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. N. K. Agrawal- Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey- Advocate
For the State :	Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh- Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Ca	se No. 21790 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh- Sr. Advocate

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.18047 of 2021(10) dt.17-01-2023 2/5

¶31

Mr. Naresh Kumar Mehta- Advocate For the State : Mr. Anisul Haque- Advocate

¶32

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶33

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

¶34

10 17-01-2023

¶35

C.W.J.C. No.18047 of 2021 and C.W.J.C.

¶36

No.21790 of 2018 have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order.

¶37

We have heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.18047 of 2021 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.21790 of 2018.

¶38

Mr. Agrawal contends that if the license of the petitioner, which was granted to her in the Year 2018, has neither been suspended nor cancelled, then there is no reason to stop the supply line.

¶39

He submits that only because there is a challenge to the grant of license to her that the supply line has been disrupted and the targeted beneficiaries

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.18047 of 2021(10) dt.17-01-2023 3/5

¶41

have been attached to the neighbouring Public Distribution Shop.

¶42

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, on the other hand, in his writ petition, submits that the issue has to be decided whether Sanju Kumari (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.18047 of 2021 and respondent no.9 in the present petition can be allowed to be retained as a licensee even though, she does not hail from the same ward, which was an essential qualification for being considered for grant of license.

¶43

We have also come across certain circulars of the Department which reflects that a decision had been taken at the Government level that in case of any court case pending against grant of license, the supply line ought not to be resumed before such court cases are finally concluded.

¶44

Nonetheless, in view of such controversy having been raised on behalf of the parties and in view of the notification dated 21.07.2022 issued by the Government

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.18047 of 2021(10) dt.17-01-2023 4/5

¶46

in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 and

¶47

5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with

¶48

Clause -36 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, we deem it appropriate to direct that if a suitable complaint is filed by Indrajit Kumar (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.21790 of 2018) before the Divisional Commissioner within a period of 15 days, the Divisional Commissioner shall, after hearing all the stakeholders, pass a final order within a further period of 60 days.

¶49

The Divisional Commissioner shall look into the aspect whether the complaint of Indrajit Kumar is genuine or whether Sanju Kumari ought to be retained as licensee and supply line to her shop be resumed forthwith

¶50

The order so passed by the Divisional Commissioner shall contain reasons for the conclusions arrived at.

¶51

With the afore-noted direction/ observation,

¶52

Patna High Court CWJC No.18047 of 2021(10) dt.17-01-2023 5/5

¶53

both the writ petitions are disposed off.

¶54

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶55

( Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶56

vikash/sunil

¶57

Indrajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajit 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

Ashok Kumar Vs The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Maheshwar Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sarju Prasad @ Sarjy Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Sakindra Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Hareram Sahu Vs The State of Bihar

Yamuna Yadav Vs The State of Bihar