Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3578 of 2019 ====================================================== Sunita Devi, aged about 43 years, Female, wife of Late Kaushal Kumar Ravi Resident of Naya Tola, Madhopur, P.S-Bakhtiyarpur, Dist-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Supply, Govt.of Bihar, Patna 2.

The District Magistrate, Patna Bihar 3.

The District Co-operative Officer, Patna Bihar 4.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh, District- Patna Bihar 5.

Block Supply Officer, Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jagannath Prasad For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner, in the present case, is challenging the impugned order passed by the Licensing Authority by which the request of the petitioner for grant of PDS License on compassionate ground has been rejected.

In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no qualification for grant of license under compassionate ground is provided.

Learned counsel for the State however submits that the grant of license on compassionate ground may be permitted

Patna High Court CWJC No.3578 of 2019(2) dt.03-07-2019 2/2 only when the dependent fulfills all the conditions which are necessary for grant of a new license because a license on compassionate ground is also a new license in terms of Rule 10 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Control Order, 2016"). It is submitted that Rule 9(v) of the Control Order, 2016 specifically provides that the applicant of a fair price shop license must be matric pass and an adult.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Admittedly the petitioner has not passed matriculation, hence the condition specified under Rule 9(v) is not satisfied.

The Writ Application has, thus, no merit. It is dismissed, accordingly.

Rajeev/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) U