Meena Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24595 of 2019 ====================================================== Meena Kumari wife of Dilip Mandal Resident of Ward No. 07, Harihar Patti, Post Office- Hariharpatti, Police Station- Triveniganj, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

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

3.

The Collector, Supaul.

4.

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, District- Supaul. 5.

The District Supply Officer, Supaul.

6.

The Director, D.R.D.A. Supaul.

7.

The Additional Collector, Supaul.

8.

Mamta Kumari wife of Tarun Mandal, Daughter of Nirmal Mehta Resident of Village- Hariharpatti, P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhav Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S. Raja Ahmad ( Aag5 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) 03-01-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Madhav Jha, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that the caste certificate offered by respondent no.8 was faulty, she was chosen to be granted licence and the petitioner was left high and dry.

In view of the nature of the controversy raised with respect to grant of licence to respondent no.8 and in

Patna High Court CWJC No.24595 of 2019(3) dt.03-01-2023 2/2 view of the notification dated 21.07.2022 issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause-36 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, we direct that in the event of the petitioner making a suitable representation/complaint before the concerned Divisional Commissioner within a period of 30 days, the Divisional Commissioner shall look into the matter and after hearing all the stakeholders, including respondent No.8, shall pass a final order within next 60 days, giving reasons in support of the decision taken by him.

We have specifically asked for respondent no.8 to be heard by the Divisional Commissioner for the reason that this order has been passed in her absence.

With the afore-noted direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Sunil/Rishi/- ( Satyavrat Verma, J) U