Rajeev Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24497 of 2019 ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Ranjan S/o Dilip Paswan Resident of Village- Barahi, P.o.- Pararia, Ward No. 11, P.s.- Barhi, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The District Magistrate Saharsa 3.

The Sub Divisional Officer Sadar, Saharsa 4.

The District Supply Officer Saharsa 5.

The Block Supply Officer Sonbarsa, Saharsa 6.

Gunjan Paswan S/o Yogendra Paswan Resident of Village- Barahi, P.o.- Pararia, P.s.- Sonbarsa Raj, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Alok Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) 12-01-2023 After some arguments, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to file a suitable complaint against the grant of license to respondent No. 6, to his exclusion, before the Divisional Commissioner, in 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.24497 of 2019(1) dt.12-01-2023 2/2 Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

This petition is permitted to be withdrawn with a direction that in the event of the petitioner making a suitable representation / complaint before the concerned Divisional Commissioner within a period of 30 days, he shall look into the matter and after hearing all the stakeholders, including respondent no. 6, shall pass a final order within a further period of 60 days, giving reasons in support of the decision taken by him.

The order so passed by the authority shall be made available to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 forthwith.

We have specifically asked respondent no. 6 to be heard by the Divisional Commissioner as the present order is being passed in his absence.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) ( Satyavrat Verma, J) Sharun/- sunil kumar U