Ranjeet Kumar Saurav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14396 of 2021 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Saurav, Son of Dwarika Yadav, Resident of Village - Barvadih, Village Panchayat - Mahuri, Police Station - Dumariya, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumers Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate Cum the Chairman District Level Selection Committee, Gaya.

3.

The District Supply Officer Cum the Secretary District Level Selection Committee, District - Gaya.

4.

The Sub Divisional Officer Cum The Licensing Authority, Sherghati, District - Gaya.

5.

Ranjit Paswan, Son of Mahadev Paswan, Resident of Village - Barvadih, P.S. - Dumariya, District - Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.S. Raza Ahmad (AAG-5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) Date : 19-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- " That the present writ petition is being filed for order(s), direction (s) to the Respondent concern to select the petitioner as P.D.S. dealer against

2/4 unreserved vacancy on roster point 725 in villageBarvadih, Village Panchayat- Mahuri, BlockDunariya (Gaya) who is running from pillar to post securing j1jst rank in the merit list after declaring the selection of the respondent No. 5 is null and void against unreserved vacancy and is contrary to Rule-9 (v) of the Bihar Trageted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016."

After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, under instructions, states that petitioner may be permitted to prefer a revision against the impugned order before the Revisional Authority. Permission granted.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a revision is preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the issue of limitation, if any, shall neither be raised nor allowed to come in the way of adjudication of the revision on merits. Statement accepted and taken on record.

As such, petition stands disposed of in the following mutually agreeable terms:- (a) Petitioner is permitted to prefer a revision within a period of four weeks from today;

(b) In the event of revision being preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the issue of limitation shall not come in the way of adjudication of the revision on merits;

3/4 (c) Opportunity shall be granted to the parties to place on record all essential documents and materials, if so required and desired;

(d) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate and not take unnecessary adjournment; (e) The Revisional Authority shall decide the revision on merits, in compliance of the principles of natural justice; (f) The Revisional Authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the revision, copy whereof be supplied to the parties; (g) Equally, liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such other remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;

(h) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch; (i) We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open;

(j) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order, before the appropriate forum, if required and desired. The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid

4/4 terms.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) Rajiv/veenaAFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date