IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.322 of 2011
IN
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 17482 of 2009
====================================================
Ram Sevak Singh, Son of Sri Ramvilash Singh, resident of Village-
Murawatpur, P.S.-Desri, District-Vaishali.
.... .... Appellant-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Chairman-cum-District Magistrate, District Selection Committee,
Vaishali, District-Vaishali.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahnar, District-Vaishali.
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
====================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Shreekant Labh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Prashat Kashyap, A.C. to GP-18
====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2. 24.2.2011. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 7th January 2011 passed in above C.W.J.C. No.
17482 of 2009 the writ petitioner has preferred the
present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The appellant claims that he had been
granted licence for fair price shop under the public
distribution scheme by the order made by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Mahnar on 4th September 2006. On
the said premise the appellant filed the above C.W.J.C.
No. 17482 of 2009 for a direction to the respondents to
make allotment of wheat, rice, kerosene oil and other
essential commodities to the appellant.
In an earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.
-2-
2231 of 2008 filed by the petitioner in the subject matter,
under order dated 7th July 2008 made by the learned
single Judge, it was held, “the exercise carried by the
Sub Divisional Officer cannot be considered to be in
consonance with the procedure laid down by the State
authorities”.
The learned single Judge noted that the State
Government had constituted a District Selection
Committee and the licences were to be issued on their
recommendation. The learned single Judge held that the
appellant had not been granted licence. In absence of a
licence issued to the appellant his claim for allotment of
food grains and other essential commodities was not
sustainable. We are in agreement with the learned single
Judge. In absence of a licence granted to the appellant,
the appellant had no claim for allotment of the food
grains and other essential commodities. Further, the
petitioner’s claim based on an order made by the Sub
Divisional Officer without the authority of law could not
have been sustained.
We see no substance in this Appeal. The
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Pawan/-