Laxmi Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4177 of 2019 ====================================================== Laxmi Kumari Wife of Pramod Kumar, Resident of Village- Harinarayanpur, (Ward No.7), P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Selection Committee, East Champaran, Motihari.

3.

The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. 4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Pakaridayal, East Champaran. 5.

Pritam Kumari Wife of Ajay Prasad Yadav, Resident of VillageHarinarayanpur, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran 6.

Poonam Devi Wife of Indrajeet Rai, Resident of Village- Harinarayanpur, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran 7.

Poonam Devi Wife of Motilal Sah, Resident of Village- Harinarayanpur, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. AC to SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-07-2019 The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the selection of respondent no. 5 for grant of P.D.S. Shop license. It is alleged that the petitioner had raised an objection as contained in Annexure '2' to the writ application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakaridaya, East Champaran but the same was not considered before going for the final selection. It is alleged that the private respondent has got one flour mill in her residential house which is being run by her uncle and, therefore, the P.D.S. Shop license cannot be granted.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4177 of 2019(2) dt.11-07-2019 2/2 Learned counsel for the State submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the selection of respondent no. 5, she has got a remedy in terms of Rule 32 of the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order, 2016') to move before the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari (Respondent No. 2).

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is being disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file her objection/representation as the case may be in terms of Rule 32 of the Control Order, 2016 before the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari within a period of 30 days from today and if such an objection is filed the same shall be considered by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari and an appropriate decision thereon shall be taken after hearing all concerned in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the objection/representation. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ved/vats U