Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 11 (JHR)

Ramakant Shukla v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-02

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Misc. Appeal Nos. 12/2010-11 and 19/2010-11 as well as the orders dated 16.06.2008 and 05.07.2008 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Record Case No. 58/2008. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner raised in the present writ petition is against the orders of the respondents-authorities granting P.D.S license to the respondent No. 6 for Village-Bihari within Mordiha Panchayat (Thakur Gangti Block) in Godda district. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having P.D.S license No. 02/93 for the same village, which has a population of merely 1,000 and, therefore, the respondents-authorities should not have issued any other P.D.S license to any person. It is further submitted that while setting aside the order cancelling the P.D.S license of the petitioner''s father vide order dated 11.06.2008 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 22/06-07 (Annexure-1/1), the respondent No. 2 remanded the matter to the respondent No. 3 to pass fresh order after making detail local enquiry. Thereafter, though the respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 03.08.2009 restoring the P.D.S license of the petitioner''s father (which was subsequently transferred in the name of the petitioner being his son on compassionate ground), yet it was observed, inter alia, that the units/cards of the beneficiaries should equally distributed among the existing dealers. It is thus submitted that the respondent No. 3 vide orders dated 16.06.2008 and 05.07.2008 granted P.D.S license to the respondent No. 6 for the same village where the petitioner is running his P.D.S shop. The said orders have been passed by the respondent No. 3 in violation of the Government instructions as well as the earlier order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 11.06.2008 in Misc. Appeal No. 22/2006-07. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.01.2013 did not appreciate the observations made by him in the earlier order dated 11.06.2008 and thereby, erroneously held that no infirmity has been committed by the respondent No. 3 in passing the orders dated 16.06.2008 and 05.07.2008 in Record Case No. 58/2008 and order dated 03.08.2009 in Record Case No. 179/2006. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 are liable to be set aside. 3. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 are liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned S.C (L&C) while opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 have rightly passed the impugned orders and the same need no interference of this Court. It is further submitted that in Thakur Gangti Block, licenses of 11 P.D.S shops were cancelled against which no new license was issued. As per the resolution of the State Government contained in Letter No. 190 dated 12.09.2009 and Memo No. 169 dated 20.1.2011, issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, there should be at least one P.D.S shop for the population of 1,000. According to 2001 census, the population of Mordiha Panchayat was 4845 and as such in the said Panchayat, there should have at least five P.D.S shops. As such, in the said Panchayat five P.D.S shops including that of the petitioner are functioning. Thus, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity and the writ petition may, accordingly, be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. On perusal of the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Misc. Appeal Nos. 12/2010- 11 and 19/2010-11, it appears that the respondent No. 2 has considered the fact that the population of Mordiha Panchayat as per 2001 census was 4845 and as per the Government resolution, there should be at least one P.D.S shop for population of 1,000 and there are five P.D.S shops operative in the said Panchayat. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 while affirming the orders passed by the respondent No. 3, held that operation of five P.D.S shops by different persons including the petitioner is just, fair and in accordance with law. It has also been observed, inter alia, by the respondent No. 2 that the work should be equally distributed among the said five P.D.S shop licensees. I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2. It has also been observed, inter alia, by the respondent No. 2 that the work should be equally distributed among the said five P.D.S shop licensees. I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2. The impugned orders dated 16.06.2008 and 05.07.2008 passed by the respondent No. 3 issuing P.D.S license to the respondent No. 6 also do not suffer from any infirmity, as any person who meets the requirement for grant of P.D.S license, is entitled for the same in accordance with law. The petitioner by his own whims and fancies cannot restrict the Government authorities to issue P.D.S license to any citizen. Every citizen has the right of livelihood. The petitioner for his own interest and financial gain cannot put impediment for the other citizen to do suitable business including his/her right to obtain license for running P.D.S shop. 5. The present writ petition being wholly misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed.