Patna High Court
Mamta Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 4 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19291 of 2019
======================================================
Mamta Kumari D/o Ashok Sao W/o Sushil Kumar, R/o Naya Bazar, Dalpatti
Lakhisarai, Ward No. 24, P.S.- Lakhisarai, Distt.- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Old Secretariat, Patna
2. The Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat,
Patna
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector-cum-Chairman District Selection
Committee, Lakhisarai, at Lakhisarai
4. The S.D.O. Lakhisarai at Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Diksha Kumar
Kumar Rajdeep
Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (SC4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-03-2025
1. The writ petition is filed for setting
aside the part proceedings of the meeting dated
19/12/2018
of the District Selection Committee,
headed by respondent No. 3, specifically
proceeding No. 14 with regard to Ward No. 24, by
which the claim of the petitioner for the issuance
of a license for a PDS shop in Ward No. 24,
Lakhisarai, was rejected on the sole ground that
the petitioner's mother-in-law is a moving
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
Kerosene Oil vendor. Further, the petitioner seeks a
direction to grant the license for the PDS shop in
Ward No. 24, Lakhisarai.
2.The brief facts of the case, as culled
from the petition, are that the petitioner applied for
the appointment of a PDS dealer in Ward No. 24,
submitting all the required documents as
mentioned in the advertisement. According to the
petitioner, she was duly qualified, and her name
was placed at Sl. No. 1. On 19/12/2018, a meeting
was held by the District Selection Committee,
Lakhisarai, headed by its Chairperson, the District
Magistrate of Lakhisarai (respondent No. 3). The
writ petition states that from the minutes of the
meeting on 19/12/2018, it would be clear that the
petitioner's application was rejected solely on the
ground that the petitioner's mother-in-law is a
licensee of a moving Kerosene Oil vendor.
3. It is further submitted that the
mother-in-law of the petitioner was granted a
license under the Bihar Trade Articles License
Unification Order 1984 (License No. 1/2005), but
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
the petitioner's mother-in-law was never granted
any license for a PDS shop.
4. The Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner Shri N.K.Agrawal submitted that it is not
in dispute that under Clause 11 of the Bihar
Targeted (Control) Order 2016, there is a restriction
on the appointment of a PDS dealer if the mother-
in-law is a PDS dealer. However, in the present
case, mother-in-law of the petitioner is not a PDS
dealer. It is further submitted that the petitioner
and her mother-in-law have been living separately
for a long time, as evident from the certificate
issued by a member of the Nagar Parishad
(Annexure-4).
5. The Learned Counsel counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the District
Selection Committee erred in rejecting the
petitioner's application on two grounds: first, the
petitioner's mother-in-law is not a PDS dealer, and
second, the petitioner and her mother-in-law are
living separately and are no longer members of a
joint family.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
6. A counter-affidavit was filed by
respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In the counter-affidavit,
it is stated that the meeting of the District
Selection Committee, Lakhisarai, for the selection
of a PDS dealer was held on 19/12/2018. The
Committee found that the petitioner's mother-in-
law is a moving Kerosene Oil Vendor and,
therefore, comes within the definition of a joint
family as defined in Clause 11 of the Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution (Control) Order 2016.
Based on this, the Committee decided not to select
the petitioner. A copy of Clause 11 of the Bihar
Targeted Public Distribution (Control) Order 2016 is
also brought on record as Annexure R/A.
7. In response to the statement made
in Para No. 9 of the Writ petition, the answering
respondents submit that it is a matter of record.
However, the Learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the term "joint family," as defined
in Clause 11 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control)
Order 2016, refers to a family that includes father,
mother, brother, brother's wife, husband, wife, son,
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
son's wife, and stepmother. Since the petitioner's
mother-in-law is a moving Kerosene Oil Vendor, she
is not entitled to obtain a PDS license. In reply to
the statement made in Para No. 13 of the Writ
petition, the answering respondents submit that
Clause 11 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control)
Order, 2016, defines a joint Hindu family and does
not address the issue of separation among
members of a joint family. In reply to the statement
made in Para No. 14 of the Writ petition, the
answering respondents submit that the District
Selection Committee, Lakhisarai, after considering
all relevant facts and materials, made an
appropriate decision regarding the petitioner.
Furthermore, in response to the statement made in
Para No. 15 of the Writ petition, it is submitted
that, in view of Notification No. 3223 dated
21/07/2022 from the Food & Consumer Protection
Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioner
has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before
the Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division,
Munger, against the decision of the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
Selection Committee.
8. Heard the Learned Counsel counsel
for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for
the State and perused the record.
9. For better appreciation of the facts,
Clause 11 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control)
Order 2016 is quoted hereinbelow:
"11. Disqualification of getting a
fair price shop license
(i) No fair price shop license shall be
granted to more than one member in a
joint family. Father, mother, brother,
brother's wife, husband, wife, son,
son's wife and step brother shall come
in the definition of the family
(ii) A mukhia, a sarpanch, a panch, a
ward member, a member of a
panchayat samiti, a member of a
district board, an MLA, a Member of
Legislative Council, a member of
Parliament, and an elected member of
municipal bodies shall not be eligible
for allotment of a fair price shop during
his tenure as such capacity.
iii) An owner of a flour mill and his near
relatives shall not be allotted a fair
price shop.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
iv). A minor or a lunatic or an insolvent
shall not be allotted a fair price shop.
(v) A person finally convicted by the
court under the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 or in any other criminal case
shall not be allotted a fair price shop.
(vi) A person holding a post of profit in
the Government shall not be allotted a
fair price shop."
10. The Learned Counsel counsel for
the petitioner contended that the petitioner's
application was rejected solely on the grounds that
her mother-in-law is a licensee of a moving
Kerosene Oil vendor. It was further argued that the
petitioner's mother-in-law was granted a license
under the Bihar Trade Articles License Unification
Order, 1984 (License No. 1/2005) but she was
never granted a license for a PDS shop. The
Learned Counsel counsel also stated that, under
Clause 11 of the Bihar Targeted (Control) Order
2016, there is a restriction on granting a PDS
license to a daughter-in-law if the mother-in-law is
a PDS dealer. However, in the present case, the
petitioner's mother-in-law is not a PDS dealer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
Additionally, it was submitted that the petitioner
and her mother-in-law have been living separately
for a long time, as evidenced by a certificate
issued by a member of the Nagar Parishad.
11. At this juncture, the Learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment passed by this Bench in CWJC No.
13096 of 2016 (Renu Lata Kumari vs. The
State of Bihar), wherein similar issues were
involved. The Hon'ble Court had been pleased to
allow the aforesaid writ petition, and accordingly,
the petitioner prayed that since this matter is
squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, this
writ petition may also be disposed of on the same
terms and conditions.
12. In view of the fact that this matter
is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, the
Writ application is disposed of, in light of the
judgment passed in Renu Lata Kumari (supra).
Accordingly, this Court, hereby, sets aside the
proceedings of the meeting dated 19.12.2018 of
the District Selection Committee, chaired by
Patna High Court CWJC No.19291 of 2019 dated04-03-2025
respondent No. 3, specifically regarding the
decision taken under proceeding No. 14 concerning
Ward No. 24, Lakhisarai.
13. The respondents are directed to
consider the material submitted by the petitioner
and re-evaluate the petitioner's candidature for
appointment as a PDS dealer for Ward No. 24.
14. With the aforesaid observation,
this Writ application is disposed off.
15. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.03.2025
Transmission Date
