Patna High CourtCWJC/14945/2017dismissed

Sheo Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-05-09Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14945 of 2017 =========================================================== Sheo Ravidas, Son of Late Nageshwar Ravidas, Resident of Village PostMahuawa, Police Station- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar.

4. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad, Bihar.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Bihar.

6. The Block Supply Officer, Madanpur, District- Aurangabad, Bihar. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filled for a direction to the respondent authorities to restore the PDS licence No. 4M/92 of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to run his PDS shop in Village Mahuawa, Block Madanpur, District Aurangabad; and for connected reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if the representation filed by the petitioner on 25.06.2015 was directed to be disposed of by the District Magistrate, Aurangabd (Annexure-1).

Patna High Court CWJC No.14945 of 2017 dt.09-05-2018 2/2

4. This Court, however, takes note that PDS shop of the petitioner was closed by the authority as far back as in August, 1998 and thereafter the petitioner filed the aforesaid representation before the District Magistrate after lapse of about 17 years. The present writ petition has been filled another two years thereafter. It is therefore evident that the petitioner is pursuing a stale claim which this Court is not inclined to entertain.

5. The writ petition stands dismissed.

B.T/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 16.05.2018 Transmission Date N.A.