Samshad Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9471 of 2021 ====================================================== Samshad Ansari S/o Muslim Ansari R/o Village Murlipur, P.O.- Baddi, P.S.- Shiv Sagar, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Principal Secretary Food and Supply Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate Rohtas.

4.

The Block Supply Officer Shiv Sagar Block, District- Rohtas. 5.

The S.D.O. Sasaram District- Rohtas.

6.

Babita Devi W/o Uday Kumar Pal R/o Village Khadiha and P.O.- Chhotaki Chenari, P.S.- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas.

7.

Niraj Kumari D/o Ayodhaya Kumar R/o Village Mohamad Pur, P.O.- Chhotaki Chenari, P.S.- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 15-02-2022 This application has been taken up for online hearing through video conference because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

The petitioner is aggrieved by selection of respondent No. 7 for grant of PDS licence under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 {'(Control) Order, 2016' for short}, denying his better claim.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.9471 of 2021(3) dt.15-02-2022 2/2 has submitted that after merit list was prepared, objections were invited, pursuant to which the petitioner had submitted his objection, which has been rejected without assigning any reason.

We have perused the decision of the District Selection Committee from which it appears that respondent No. 7 was granted licence on the basis of her computer knowledge. However, the petitioner has remedy under Rule 32(iii) of the (Control) Order, 2016, which he has not invoked. In such view of the matter, this application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to invoke the said remedy by preferring an appeal. If an appeal is preferred within four weeks from today with an application seeking condonation of delay, it is expected that the appellate authority shall not reject the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay and shall decide the petitioner's appeal on merit within the time stipulated under the (Control) Order, 2016.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) K.K.RAO/- U