Sri Krishna Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16065 of 2017 ====================================================== Sri Krishna Kumar Thakur Son of Late Deo Nandan Thakur, Resident of Ward No. 7, Holding No. 19, Town P.O. P.S. and District- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Commissioner Magadh Division Gaya.

3.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.

5.

The Block Supply Officer, Aurangabad Block.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.Raza Ahmad -Aag5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025

1. The Writ petition is filed to direct the Respondent-Authority to renew the PDS License No. 33/A/T/85 of the petitioner, which was not renewed by the concerned authorities, in spite of paying the renewal fees.

2. The brief fact of the Writ petition is that the petitioner made an application for Ward No. 7, Holding No. 19, Town P.S. and District- Aurangabad and he was granted License No. 33/A/T/85. Since

Patna High Court CWJC No.16065 of 2017(3) dt.09-07-2025 2/3 the date of grant of license, the petitioner was running the shop without any blemish from any quarter. His license was renewed up to the year 2005. Thereafter, for the period 2006 to 2008, he deposited the challan on 23.12.2003 as contained in Annexure-1. The petitioner again paid renewal fees on 27.12.2006 for renewal of his license from 2006 to 2008 vide Annexure 2.

3. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he was running the PDS shop without renewal of his license but received all government supply up to 2005. However, on perusal of Annexure 1, it is evident that the challan was actually paid in the year 2004, as per the Stamp of the Government Office. Further, the Writ petition was filed in the year 2017, i.e., after a span of twelve years, for renewal of his PDS License.

4. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents.

5. No valid or convincing reason has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.16065 of 2017(3) dt.09-07-2025 3/3 assigned by the petitioner, for inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considerable view that the Writ petition was filed at a very belated stage and is not maintainable as per the law.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits. (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Ranjeet/- U