Savita Devi @ Sabita Devi v. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3860 of 2021 ====================================================== Savita Devi @ Sabita Devi ,female, aged about 33 years, wife of Sanjeev Kumar Singh resident of Village - Nawada, P.S. - Karakat, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 3.

The District Supply Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 4.

The S.D.O., Bikramganj, District- Rothas.

5.

The Sub-Divisional Supply Officer, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. 6.

The Block Supply Officer, Karakat, District- Rohtas. 7.

Soni Devi wife of Pratap Dhanu Lal resident of Village - Nawada Tola, P.O. - Belwaiyan, P.S. - Karakat, District- Rohtas. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Respondents :

Mr. Lalit Kishore AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 21-01-2022 This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. The petitioner has grievance against selection of respondent no.7 for grant of license of PDS shop under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short 'the Control Order, 2016'), ignoring the petitioner's claim.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CWJC No.3860 of 2021(2) dt.21-01-2022 2/2 that respondent No.7 has been successful in obtaining the license on the basis of fake certificate of her being a handicapped.

4. The petitioner has, admittedly, alternative remedy of approaching appropriate/statutory authority under the Control Order, 2016, which she has not invoked.

5. Considering the facts and circumstance, this application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach appropriate statutory authority in accordance with the provisions under the Control Order, 2016. If such representation/application is made within four weeks from today, the Court expects that the appellate authority, instead of rejecting the petitioner's case on the ground of delay shall consider the same on merits within a period of three months.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U