Patna High Court
Renu Lata Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 18 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13096 of 2016
======================================================
Renu Lata Kumari W/o Girani Prasad resident of Bighapar, Ward No.- 2, P.S.-
Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Chairman - cum- Collector of District Level Selection Committee,
Sheikhpura
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura
4. The Block Supply Officer, Sheikhpura
5. Smt. Nilu Kumari W/o Sandeep Kumar resident of Bighapar, Ward No.- 2,
P.S.- Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Diksha Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Diksha Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Jha
Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to GA 9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2025
1. The writ petition is filed for setting
aside the appointment of Nilu Kumari (respondent
No. 5) as the PDS dealer for Ward No. 2, dated
24.02.2016
, who is listed at serial No. 3 in the
selection list. The petitioner, whose name stands at
serial No. 2 in the selection list, further prays for an
Patna High Court CWJC No.13096 of 2016 dt.18-02-2025
order to be appointed as the PDS dealer for Ward No.
2.
2. The brief facts of the case culled out of
the petition are that the petitioner applied for the
appointment of PDS dealer in Ward No. 2 with all
required documents as mentioned in the
advertisement/notice dated 20.04.2015. The notice
for appointment disclose that there were 70
vacancies of the PDS dealer in Sheikhpura Sub-
Division and as per the roster of reservation, there
was one vacancy for PDS dealer under the category
of Most Backward Class (MBC) in petitioner's Ward
No. 2. The notice made it clear that the license
would not be allotted to the following categories:- (a)
different persons/members of the joint family, (b)
elected Mukhiya, Sarpanch, Ward Member, Member
of Panchayat Samiti, Members of Jila Parishad, MLA,
MP and Members of Nagarpalika during the period of
the post, (c) owner of flour mill, minor and bankrupt
individual (d) persons convicted under section 7 of
Essential Commodities Act and (e) person holding a
post of profit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13096 of 2016 dt.18-02-2025
3. The applications of the petitioner and
other candidates were scrutinized, and a provisional
list of selected candidates for Ward No. 2 was
prepared by the authorities, which was made
available on the internet. The provisional list disclose
that one Nitish Kumar, S/o Sahdeo Thakur, was at
serial No. 1, the petitioner was at serial No. 2 and
one Nilu Kumari was at serial No. 3. However, in the
remarks column, it has been stated that the husband
of the petitioner was working as a Thela/cart vendor.
The final list of selected candidates, dated
24.02.2016, disclose that the respondent No. 5, who
was at serial No. 3, was selected as PDS dealer for
Ward No. 2. Later, during the inquiry, it came to the
knowledge of the petitioner that Nitish Kumar, who
was at serial No. 1, was a resident of another place
and therefore, he was not finally selected. Despite
the petitioner being from the same ward, she was
not selected on the ground that her husband was a
Thela/cart vendor. As a result, respondent No. 5, who
was at serial No. 3, was selected as PDS dealer for
Ward No. 2. Thereafter, the present Writ petition is
Patna High Court CWJC No.13096 of 2016 dt.18-02-2025
filed challenging the appointment of the respondent
No. 5.
4. The state has not filed any counter
affidavit. However, the Learned counsel for the
respondent No. 5 has filed a detailed counter
affidavit.
5. The counter affidavit of the respondent
No. 5 disclose that there were no remarks against
her and she was selected as PDS dealer for Ward No.
2, Nagar Parisad, Sheikhpura on 17.03.2016, for the
period from 2016 to 2020. Later, the the PDS
dealership was renewed on 31.08.2021, for the
period from 2021 to 2025. The counter affidavit also
disclose that the name of Nitish Kumar at serial No.
1, was rejected as he was not a resident of Ward
No.2. For the petitioner, Renu Lata Kumari, who was
at serial No. 2, her husband Girani Prasad already
held a Government Kerosene Oil license and was a
Thela/card vendor, engaged in a trade that
contravened Clause 3 of PDS, Control Orders, so her
name was not selected as a PDS dealer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13096 of 2016 dt.18-02-2025
6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that license of a Thela/cart vendor is
granted under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles
(Licenses) Unification Order, 1984, whereas the PDS
license is granted in accordance with the PDS
Orders, 2001, notified on 20.02.2007. Furthermore, it
is specific contention of the Learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no bar for issuing the PDS
license even if the husband of the petitioner is the
Thela/card vendor, as he does not fall under the
categories for which the license shall not be allotted.
7. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
State and perused the record. None appeared on
behalf of the respondent No. 5.
8. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident
that the licensee shall not be allotted to the
categories mentioned from (a) to (e) as stated
(supra) in the writ petition, and the husband of the
petitioner does not fall under these categories.
Therefore, there can be no bar in issuing the license
to the petitioner. However, the counter affidavit of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13096 of 2016 dt.18-02-2025
the respondent No. 5 clearly disclose that her license
has been renewed until March, 2025. Therefore, this
court is of the considered view that the husband of
the petitioner does not fall under any of the grounds
as mentioned in the advertisement for
disqualification from being allotted the license.
Nevertheless, the use of kerosene has significantly
declined in the society, and therefore, this Court
cannot conclude that the husband of the petitioner
was holding a post of profit. Since the PDS license of
the respondent No. 5 is renewed only until 2025, the
respondent shall consider the material submitted by
the petitioner and shall consider the candidature of
the petitioner for appointment as PDS dealer.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the
Writ petition is allowed.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Amandeep/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.02.2025.
Transmission Date
