Radheshyam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10378 of 2017 ====================================================== Radheshyam Yadav Son of late Sitaram Yadav, resident of Village-Kewta, P.S.-Dalsinghsarai, istrict Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate,Samastipur. 3.

The District Supply Officer, Samastipur.

4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer,Dalsinghsarai.

5.

The Block Supply Oficer, Dalsinghsarai.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2023 The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.04.2013, passed by respondent no. 2, namely the Collectorcum-District Magistrate, Samastipur in case no. 39/13, whereby his license for PDS dealership was cancelled. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 24.11.2016, passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga whereby appeal preferred against the said was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and the same has been pending for almost 6 years. This Court finds that the P.D.S. dealership license of

Patna High Court CWJC No.10378 of 2017(3) dt.18-03-2023 2/2 the petitioner was cancelled in the year 2013 and more than 10 years have passed by. In lieu thereof, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to examine the matter and by efflux of time, the present writ petition has rendered infructuous and no relief of renewing/restoring of license can be granted to him after 10 years of cancellation of license. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be always eligible to apply again for the PDS dealership, if he so chooses.

As such, with the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous by efflux of time with aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Gauravkr/- Item No. 36 U