Jharkhand High Court
Hiramani Devi Wife Sri Janardhan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1992 of 2023
---
Hiramani Devi wife Sri Janardhan Mahto, resident of Village
Dankera, P.O.- Dankera, P.S.- Lapung, District- Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
4. The District Supply Officer, Ranchi
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi
.... ... Respondents
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
Order No. 05 Dated: 10.03.2025
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
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:
"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.
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
authority without any mandate of law, the same is a nullity
as it exercises powers conferred by a statute."
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.
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.
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.
9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/
