Neelam Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9768 of 2018 ====================================================== Neelam Kumari W/o Sri Birendra Kumar, Resident of Village- Kishunpur Mohini Tole- Darjiyan Ward No. 1 P.S. Kurhni, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 3.

The Sub-Divisional officer West, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The Block Marketing Officer, Kurhai Block, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Arvind Ujjwal SC4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 26-06-2025

1. The Writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the application/representation submitted by the petitioner before respondent No. 3.

2. The contents of the Writ petition disclose that the petitioner is a woman, qualified and possessing good computer knowledge, who is entitled for the PDS license as per the roster. However, her application was neither considered nor rejected by the competent authority, and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ petition.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9768 of 2018(2) dt.26-06-2025 2/3

3. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The Learned counsel for the respondent contended that respondent No. 3, SDO, Muzaffarpur, is not the competent authority to select PDS dealers. It is the District Level Committee, headed by the District Magistrate, which is empowered to select the PDS dealers based on the decision of the committee, while the license is granted by the SDO. In the present case, the petitioner has not sought any relief against the respondent No. 2 for not selecting her as PDS dealer. However, it is contended by the Learned counsel for the respondent that a direction may be given to the SDO, Muzaffarpur, to dispose of the representation, if it is pending before him.

5. Considering the above facts, if at all the representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondent No.3, i.e., SDO, Muzaffarpur, this Court directs the respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders and dispose of the same within

Patna High Court CWJC No.9768 of 2018(2) dt.26-06-2025 3/3 three months from the date of receipt of the order.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands dispose of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) AMANDEEP/- U