Rinkee Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 2404 of 2021 ====================================================== Rinkee Devi Wife of Ram Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village - Bansghat Masuriya, P.S. Mohammadpur, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran at Chapra. 4.

The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.

5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj.

6.

The District Supply Officer, Barauli, District - Gopalganj. 7.

The Child Development Project Officer, Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj. 8.

The Block Development Officer, Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj. 9.

The Block Supply Officer -cum-Marketing Officer, Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.

10.

The District Level Selection Committee (Supply) Through its Chairman, District - Gopalganj.

11.

Nirmala Devi, Wife of Jitendra Kumar, Resident of Village - Bansghat Masuriya, P.S. Mohammadpur, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Aravind Ujjwal, SC IV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 18-01-2022 This case has been taken up for online hearing through video-conference because of COVID 19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2404 of 2021(2) dt.18-01-2022 2/2 The petitioner has raised grievance against grant of licence to run a shop under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (for brevity, BTPDS) (Control) Order, 2016 in favour of Respondent No 11. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner had better merit than Respondent No 11 for the purpose of grant of the licence.

The petitioner has remedy under the BTPDS Control Order before appropriate/statutory authority which the petitioner has not invoked.

This application is, thus, disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate/statutory authority for redressal of her grievance.

If any such application is made within four weeks from today, the appropriate/statutory authority, without going into the question of delay, considering the fact that the petitioner was pursuing her remedy before this Court, shall decide the same on merit.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U