JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21-2-2003 (Annexure-1) whereby the food grains meant for distribution under the Antyoday Scheme has been directed to be withdrawn from the petitioner and allotted to respondent No. 4 Suresh Yadav, another dealer under the Public Distribution System.
2. Shorts facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner possesses a licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences & Unification) Order, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Unification Order’ and was also appointed as a dealer under the Public Distribution System, for short ‘PDS’. It seems that one Shri Rahmatullah was a dealer under the PDS who died and after his death, by order dated 28-6-2002, the allotment made in his favour was assigned to the petitioner. The Panchayat Samiti of Raghunathpur, in its meeting held on 17-2-2002, resolved to allot the food grains under the Antyodai Scheme to respondent No. 4 and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn. In the light of the decision of the Panchayat Samiti by the impugned order, the food grains allotted to the petitioner under the Antyodai Scheme has been withdrawn and assigned to respondent No. 4.
3. Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Panchayat Samiti has no authority to take decision in this regard. In my opinion, grant of food grains under the Antyodai Scheme is not governed by any statute and the same is governed by the principal of agency. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no right to get the food grains allotted under the Antyodai Scheme and as such, the relief sought for is absolutely misconceived. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Krishna Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2001 (2) PLJR 535, in which it has been observed as follows:
“4. This is, however, not the end of the matter. The grant of a retail licence under the Unification Order is one thing and the grant of dealership under the Public Distribution System is something quite different. It is true that for a dealership under the Public Distribution System the dealer must have a retail licence but the converse evidently is not true and it cannot be said that every one having a retail licence must also be given a dealership under the Public Distribution System. The dealership under the Public Distribution System is simply an agency and would be governed by the law of agency in which the Government is the principal and the dealer is the agent. If for any reason the principal no longer wishes to continue some one as dealer, the dealership cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”
4. Mr. Khan then submits that the action of respondent No. 2 in withdrawing the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and allotting it to respondent No. 4 is arbitrary and the same requires interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s appointment under the PDS has not been rescinded and the food grains meant for that purpose are being allotted to him. The food grains under the Antyodai Scheme was allotted to the petitioner on account of death of another dealer and later on, on the basis of the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti, respondent No. 2 by the impugned order, had withdrawn the same from the petitioner and allotted the same to respondent No. 4. I do not find any error in the same.
5. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.