Jay Ram Gupta, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4926 of 2021 ====================================================== Jay Ram Gupta, S/o Shri Ram Naresh Sah, Resident of Village-Bariyarpur, P.S.-Panchrukhi, Distt.-Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar.

2.

Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.

4.

District Magistrate, Siwan-cum-Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, Siwan Collectirate, Siwan.

5.

District Supply Officer, Siwan.

6.

Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rationing Officer Siwan Sadar, District-Siwan. 7.

Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, District-Siwan. 8.

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Siwan Sadar, District-Siwan. 9.

District Co-operative Officer, Siwan, District-Siwan. 10.

Block Development Officer, Panchrukhi, Siwan Sadar, District-Siwan. 11.

Sri Yogendra Kumar Mahto, S/o of Nag Narayan Mahto, Resident of Village-Bariyarpur, P.O.-Gamharia, District-Siwan. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shanti Pratap, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S. Raza Ahmad (AAG-5) Mr. Vipin Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 25-01-2022 This application has been taken up for online hearing through video conference because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Petitioner has grievance against selection of respondent no. 11 for grant of licence to run a fair price shop

Patna High Court CWJC No.4926 of 2021(2) dt.25-01-2022 2/2 under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as 'BTPDS (Control) Order, 2016']. According to the petitioner, the respondents have ignored the petitioner's better merit for the purpose of grant of the said licence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the position that the petitioner has alternative remedy under the BTPDS (Control) Order, 2016 to ventilate his grievance. Considering above, this application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate/statutory authority under the BTPDS (Control) Order, 2016 for redressal of his grievances.

It is indicated that if the petitioner makes an application, invoking provisions under BTPDS (Control) Order, 2016, in the light of the present order within four weeks from today, the appropriate/statutory authority shall consider the same on merit and shall not reject the same merely on the ground of limitation, if any.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U