Patna High Court
Sanju Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 2 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3870 of 2020
======================================================
Sanju Devi Wife of Sunil Kumar Gupta Resident of Village- Bhanghatula,
P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Commissioner Purnea Division, Purnea.
3. The District Level Selection Committee Purnea through its Chairman.
4. The District Magistrate Purnea.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer Purnea
6. The Block Supply Officer Dhamdaha, Purnea.
7. Anju Kumari Wife of Siya Charan Kumar Resident of Village- Bhanghatula,
P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Vijay Anand,
Aatish Kumar, Advocates
For the State : M/s S. Raza Ahmad, AAG 5
Bijay Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG 5
For the Respondent No.7: Ms. Preety Kunwar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-05-2025
1.The present writ petitioner has been
filed for challenging the order dated 25.11.2019
passed by the Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Patna, whereby the order
dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner,
Purnea Division, Purnea was set aside, as the same
was not found lawful. The petitioner further prays
for a direction to the competent authority to grant
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
2/12
license in favour of the petitioner for Latraha
Panchayat, in accordance with the provisional
merit list.
2. At the outset, it is imperative to take
note of the relevant background facts and the
litigation history between the parties that are
germane to the present dispute.
3. The petitioner made an application,
pursuant to Notice dated 19.05.2017 published in
Daily Newspaper Dainik Jagran Hindi Edition in
terms of Letter No. 1222 dated 8.3.2017 under the
Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order 2016 for grant of
PDS License in various Sub-divisions in the District
of Purnea. The petitioner applied for grant of PDS
License in Latraha Panchayat, Barhara Kothi Block,
where there was vacancy of one seat, in the office
of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha, under
General Category (Female).
4. Respondent No. 7 also filed her
application form, for the for grant of PDS License
for Latraha Panchayat, Barhara Kothi Block, in the
General category in office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
3/12
Dhamdaha, under General Category (Female).
5. The petitioner annexed a comparative
chart, which has been prepared in the office of
Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha (Annexure-3)
showing the list of five applicants who applied for
the PDS license, in question.
6. The petitioner filed an objection on
28.07.2018
before the District Magistrate, Purnea
stating therein that the close relative of
respondent No. 7 is already running a PDS shop in
Ward No. 3, of Latraha Panchayat, Barhara Kothi
Block, District Purnea. It is further submitted that
another candidate Sudha Kumari is not having the
certificate of computer knowledge, and another
candidate, Pallavi Kumari whose father-in-law is
the PACS President in Lataraha Panchayat and is
also running a PDS shop and as such these
applicants were not suitable candidates, for grant
of PDS license and the petitioner is claiming herself
to be a suitable candidate for the PDS license in
question.
7. The Petitioner brought on record
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
Annexure-5 which is the provisional merit list
prepared on 29.09.2018 by the Committee for the
PDS license in question.
8. From perusal of provisional merit list, it
appears that the objection filed by the petitioner
before the District Magistrate, Purnea was rejected
without assigning any suitable reason and the
candidature of candidate at Sl. No. 2, namely,
Sudha Kumari and at Sl. No. 3 Pallavi Kumari were
also rejected. It is claimed by the petitioner that
on the same day i.e., 29.09.2018 a final merit list
(Annexure-6) was prepared and the name of
respondent No. 7 was shown as selected for grant
of PDS License. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
objection before the District Magistrate, Purnea on
23.10.2018 and also before the Commissioner,
Purnea Division, Purnea on 24.10.2018. It is further
submitted that when the final list was published
and the name of respondent No. 7 was selected
for grant of PDS License in Latraha Panchayat then
the petitioner moved to this Court by filing CWJC
No. 22529 of 2018 which was disposed of on
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
27.11.2018, with a direction to the petitioner to file
a representation within a period of four weeks
before the Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea
and in turn the Commissioner, Purnea Division,
Purnea was directed to dispose of the same within
a period of 8 weeks thereafter.
9. It is submitted by the petitioner that,
thereafter, the Commissioner, Purnea Division,
Purnea, passed a detailed order in Misc. Supply
Case No. 107/2018 on 18.06.2019 (Annexure-10)
filed by the petitioner, holding therein that the
respondent No. 7 is the reisdent of Ward No. 3,
and in that Ward a PDS shop has already been
running by the close relative of the respondent No.
7. It was further observed in the order that the
petitioner is resident of Ward No. 4 and in ward No.
4 there is no such PDS shop as such selection of
cannot be lawful because the objective of the fresh
license of PDS is to give the benefit to the
consumer, who can get their food grains from their
nearest PDS shop and in the advertisement there
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
was a specific clause that the candidature of those
candidates will not be accepted if in their Ward, a
PDS shop has been running already and
accordingly the selection of respondent No. 7 do
not sustain and is to be set aside.
10. Against the order of Commissioner,
preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Food &
Consumer Protection Department, Patna, which
was allowed by order dated 25.11.2019 contained
in Memo No. 5547 (Annexure-11) on two points.
First, there was no irregularities in granting license
in the same ward, where the PDS License is
already running and secondly the letter issued for
Madhepura District cannot be applicable in the
Purnea District.
11. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Secretary, while passing the
order dated 25.11.2019 completely ignored the
Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 9 of Bihar Targetted PDS
Control Order 2016, by which it shall be ensured
that a consumer should not cover a maximum
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
distance of more than 2 Km in reaching his Fair
Price Shop in rural areas.
12. Further, the Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the order dated
25.11.2019 do not sustain in the eye of law and is
fit to be quashed and further the petitioner should
be selected in terms of order dated 18.6.2019
passed by the Commissioner, Purnea Division,
Purnea.
13. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf
of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. It is submitted that
the petitioner is not at all entitled to relief claimed
by her, as per paragraph No. 1 of the petition, as
the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Patna, has set aside the order dated
18.06.2019 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea in Misc. Supply Case No.
107 of 2018 by his order as contained in Memo
No. 5547 dated 25.11.2019 and has given a
direction to grant PDS license to the respondent
No. 7.
14. A counter affidavit was filed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
respondent No. 7 stating therein that the cousin
father-in-law of the respondent No. 7 does not
come within the meaning / definition of joint
family as per clause 11(i) of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016,
which reads as follows:
"11. Disqualifications 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."
15. The Learned counsel for the
respondent No. 7 submitted that in view of the
above, the objection of the petitioner on the
ground that the cousin's father-in-law of
Respondent No. 7 is already a PDS Dealer and
that PDS license should not have been granted is
not at all tenable in the eyes of law. Further, the
respondent No. 7 is running his shop since 2018
without any complaint.
16. It is further contended in the counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
affidavit that the application of the petitioner was
incomplete and not fully filled-up hence the same
was rejected on the ground of incomplete form.
17. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the
counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. 2 to 6 and respondent No. 7 and contended
therein that cousin father-in-law of respondent No.
7 has already been holding a PDS license and the
said PDS shop is already working in the same Ward
No. 2, so issuance of a PDS License to private
respondent No. 7 to run the PDS shop in the same
Ward is clear violation of Rule 11(i) of the Bihar
Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016. In support of
his contention that cousin father-in-law comes
under the definition of Joint family, he relied on
the judgments of Surjit Lal Chhabda V. CIT
reported in 1976 AIR 109, Rukhmabai V. Lal
Laxminarayan reported in 1960 AIR 335 and
Rajagopal V. Padmini reported in 1996 AIR 238
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
18. Heard Learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Learned counsel for the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
Nos. 2 to 6 and the Learned counsel for the
respondent No. 7.
19. In response to queries raised by the
Court, supplementary counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. First
query was with respect to granting license for 2 nd
PDS shop in Ward No. 3 and the second query was
with respect to place of original application of the
petitioner to prove that whether the application
filed by the petitioner is complete or not.
20. By filing supplementary counter
affidavit with respect to the first queries i.e.
granting license for 2nd PDS Shop in ward No.3, it
is submitted that advertisement for granting PDS
License against one seat under unreserved female
category for Latraha Panchayat was published and
for the same five application were received. Out of
5 applicant, Respondent No. 7 was found to be
most eligible candidate, therefore, the license for
running PDS Shop was granted in favour of
Respondent no.7. It is further submitted that
advertisement was issued for a Panchayat
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
irrespective of its comprising Wards and co-
incidentally the selected candidate was also a
resident of the same Ward which already has PDS
Shop running. It is submitted that the petitioner
also filed an objection against the selection of the
Respondent No. 7 alleging therein that the brother
of the Father-in-Law of the Respondent No.7 was
already having a license for running a PDS Shop. It
is further submitted that according to the Rule 11
(1) the brother of father-in-law does not come
under the prohibited category for declining a
license.
21. With respect to the second query i.e.
whether the application filed by the Petitioner was
complete or not, it is submitted by the
respondents that the Column 3 to 13 of the
application of the Petitioner was found to be
incomplete, therefore, the application of the
Petitioner was rightly rejected by the selection
committee.
22. Upon perusal of the original application
submitted by the petitioner for grant of PDS
Patna High Court CWJC No.3870 of 2020 dt.02-05-2025
License, it appears that the application submitted
by the petitioner was incomplete and was not duly
filled, and as such, it was rightly rejected on the
ground of being incomplete. Further, on
examination of Clause 11(i) of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, it is
evident that a cousin father-in-law does not fall
within the definition of a "joint family" as
contemplated under the said provision.
23. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the
order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Secretary,
Food & Consumer Protection Department, Patna.
24. Accordingly, the Writ petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
25. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.05.2025
Transmission Date
