IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6228 of 2010
1. SHIV SHANKAR SINGH S/O SRI NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH
R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- ALAWALPUR, P.S.- GAURI CHAK, DISTT.-
PATNA AT PRESENT WORKING AS UP-MUKHIYA - CUM - CO-
ORDINATOR OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MONITORING COMMITTEE,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, ALAWALPUR
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FOOD CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, OLD
SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CONSUMER PROTECTION
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, PATNA
4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (SUPPLY), PATNA
5. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (S.D.O.), PATNA CITY, DISTT.-
PATNA
6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER FATUHA BLOCK, P.S.- FATUHA,
DISTT.- PATNA
7. DILIP RABI DAS S/O SRI DINESHWAR RABIDAS R/O VILL.-
ALAWALPUR, PANCHAYAT ALAWALPUR, P.S.- GAURICHAK,
DISTT.- PATNA
-----------
03. 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for
the State.
The writ petition was filed on 9.4.2010 after
serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General.
The second copy was to facilitate expeditious filing of a
counter affidavit to enable the respondents to assist the
Court in timely dispensation of justice. Today when the
matter is taken up one year later, learned counsel for the
State prays for adjournment to seek instruction and file a
counter affidavit. This Court has already observed in
another proceeding that the officers of the State
Government appear to be harbouring under a
misconception that it was their compulsive right to get an
2
adjournment on the first date that the writ petition was
taken for filing of counter affidavit irrespective of the date
of filing and the long delay that they may have been
negligent, whiling away time since the filing of the writ
petition not filing the counter affidavit.
The attitude of the respondents in stalling the
proceeding before the Court is unfortunate. Had a counter
affidavit been filed, the writ petition could have been
disposed off today in clear terms positively or negatively
bringing the litigation to an end. That the controversy
continues even after the writ application shall be disposed
today, the responsibility shall lie squarely with the
respondents.
The petitioner alleges that the P.D.S. license for
Alawalpur Panchayat has been directed to be given to
respondent no.7 contrary to statutory procedures
prescribed under Section 2 of the Fair Price Shop Order,
2007 framed under the Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2001 mandating it to be routed through a
Selection Committee. Reliance is placed on a
representation dated 16.11.2009 raising this specific
objection in paragraph-3 of the same. Learned counsel
submits that in pursuance thereof the State Government
in the Department of Food and Civil Supply on 25.1.2010
have also called for a report in this regard which is yet to
3
be submitted. He next submits that District Magistrate
himself has approved the grant of license to respondent
no.7 as noticed in the order dated 19.2.2010 of the
Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Patna.
No orders with regard to the license granted to
respondent no.7 can be passed at this stage in absence of
the said respondent.
The writ application is therefore disposed with
directions to the District Magistrate, Patna to call for the
original records and satisfy himself, if the selection of
respondent no.7 was routed through and with the approval
of the statutory Selection Committee. If the District
Magistrate is so satisfied, he shall pass a brief reasoned
order on this aspect. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the
same he may avail his remedy in accordance with law.
Conversely, if the District Magistrate be of the
opinion that the selection was not routed through the
statutory Selection Committee he shall issue necessary
directions to the licensing authority to issue notice to
respondent no.7 and then proceed to act in accordance
with law.
Let the first direction contained in the present
order be complied within a maximum period of two months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
The second direction, circumstances warranting, must be
4
complied with within a maximum period of four months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
The writ application stands disposed with the
aforesaid directions.
P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)