[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Firoz Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:9696 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6666 of 2012
Firoz Ansari, son of late Noor Mohammad Ansari, resident of village
Bajpur, P.S. Ratu, P.S. Guru, District-Ranchi
...............Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Food & Civil
Supply, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supply, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, having its office near Civil Court, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi having its office near Civil Court,
P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi,
...... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Miss. Apurva, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A-III
10/ 07.04.2026: Heard Miss Apurva, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A-III, appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
2. This petition has been filed for under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.10.2012 by which the
P.D.S licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent no.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of
the petitioner namely, late Noor Mohammad Ansari was provided licence in
the year, 1988 who died leaving behind the petitioner and other family
member dependent on him after continuing the shop for more than 20
years. She draws the attention of the court to letter dated 10.12.1996 and
14.10.1998 contained in Annexure-1 and 2 of the petition and submits that
then the Government of Bihar by the said letter decided to grant license to
the dependent of licensee, if the licensee died after running the shop of
public distribution system for eight years. By way of referring the letter dated
( 2026:JHHC:9696 )
10.04.2006 contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition she submits that
the Government of Jharkhand after creation of Jharkhand put embargo on
issuance of new license, however issued instruction to concerned authority to
issue license on compassionate ground after following the process. She
further submits that in the light of aforesaid decision the petitioner was
granted license on compassionate ground in view of annexure-4 of the writ
petition. She further submits that however by order dated 20.03.2012 the
respondent no.4 cancelled the license of the petitioner. She submits that the
said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1821 of 2012 and
the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 17.07.2012 quashing the
order dated 20.03.2012 and liberty was provided to the respondents to
proceed in accordance with law. She next submits that thereafter the status
of license of the petitioner was restored by order dated 22.09.2012 however,
the petitioner was not allowed to collect article and distribute the same. She
further submits that was only eye wash and the petitioner was restricted not
to distribute any article and thereafter the petitioner again received show
cause by letter dated 22.09.2012 as to why the license of the petitioner
should not be cancelled. She submits that by the impugned order on the
basis of resolution no. 1580 dated 06.08.2009 the license of the petitioner
has been cancelled only on the ground that BPL, Women Self Help Groups
can be granted license on the compassionate ground. She further submits
that the said resolution dated 06.08.2009 is not debarring other
compassionate allotment of license and inspite of that in absence of any
cogent reason, the said order has been passed. She submits that there is no
illegality done by the petitioner in the light of Clause 11 of Bihar Trade
Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, license cannot be cancelled or
suspended if there is no violation of Clause-11 is made by the petitioner. On
( 2026:JHHC:9696 )
these grounds, she submits that this writ petition may kindly be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A-II appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State opposes the prayer and submits that
petitioner is having alternative remedy by way of filing the appeal before
the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that the license of the petitioner has
been cancelled in the light of resolution no. 1580 dated 06.08.2009 wherein
only BPL, Women Self Help Groups can be granted license and in view of
that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled as such there is no
illegality in the impugned order and this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
5. There is no doubt that if any alternative remedy is there the High
Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining to
exercise the discretionary power however this writ petition is of the year,
2012 and already entertained and several orders have been passed, the
Court finds that at this stage remand back the matter to the appellate
authority will not be justified.
6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was provided PDS license in
the year, 1988. He has run that shop for more than 20 years. Subsequently,
he has died and pursuant to letter dated 10.04.2006 the petitioner was
provided license on compassionate ground and further the said license was
cancelled inspite of any cogent reason which was challenged by the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 1821 of 2012 and the said writ petition was allowed by
order dated 17.07.2012 by way of quashing the order dated 20.03.2012.
Thereafter, the status of license of the petitioner was restored by order
dated 22.09.2012 however, the petitioner was not allowed to withdraw any
article and distribute the same. Subsequently, the petitioner was show-
caused and thereafter the petitioner filed reply to the show cause and only
on the ground of Resolution Dated 1580 dated 06.08.2009 saying that only
( 2026:JHHC:9696 )
BPL, Women Self Help Groups can be granted license, the license of the
petitioner has been cancelled. In the said Resolution dated 1580 dated
06.08.2009 there is no provision to cancel any allotment to other person
prior to issuing of said letter. Prima facie it appears that the said resolution is
restricted to only BPL, Women Self Help Groups members that is not
restricting for compassionate appointment and in view of that it transpires
that the said resolution has been wrongly applied by the authorities. So far
the case of the petitioner is concerned, further Clause 11 of Bihar Trade
Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 suspension and cancellation of
license can be made once any contravention of any terms and conditions of
the license has been made by the licensee. There is no reason assigned in
the impugned order what terms and conditions and contravention has been
made by the petitioner and in view of that also the impugned order cannot
be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
11.10.2012 passed by the respondent no.4 is hereby quashed. The license of
PDS shop of the petitioner is restored.
7. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis this writ petition is
allowed and disposed of in above terms. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed
of.
Dt.07.04.2026
Satyarthi/- ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
