Ramun Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6527 of 2019 ====================================================== Ramun Kumar Chaudhary Son of Muniram Chaudhary, Resident of VillageKajhain, Kajhai, P.S.-Bikramganj, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Supply Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Sasaram). 3.

The Sub Divisional Officer, P.S.-Bikramganj, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.

The District Supply Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram), District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 5.

The Assistant District Supply Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram), District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

6.

The Circle Officer, Bikramganj, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S. Raza Ahmad (Aag5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 30-07-2019 After some argument learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to file an appropriate application/appeal before the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram (Respondent No. 2) to ventilate his grievance. Learned counsel for the State has, however, pointed out that it seems to be a very peculiar case in which the death certificate of the deceased grandfather of the petitioner is showing at the time of death as 56 years in the year 2018 but the age of the petitioner who is claiming himself as grandson of the deceased Ramashish Chaudhary is aged about 37 years. This,

Patna High Court CWJC No.6527 of 2019(2) dt.30-07-2019 2/2 according to him, would be a matter of enquiry if the petitioner approaches the District Magistrate for grant of license of the Public Distribution System shop on compassionate ground. Be that as it may, this writ application is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy before respondent no. 2 if so advised in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from today.

In case any such application is preferred within the aforesaid period the same shall be considered on its own merit and in case any question of limitation arises for consideration, the same will be considered keeping in mind that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court.

So far as the issues raised by learned counsel for the State is concerned, the respondent no. 2 shall while considering the request of the petitioner look that issue. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/vedU