Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 208 (PAT)

Saviti Kumari @ Savitri Devi v. State of Bihar

2022-03-22

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD

body2022
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for grant of license to run a fair price shop under Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 for Hathua Panchayat in the district of Gopalganj. Her name figured in the merit list at serial No 1 prepared for the said purpose by the District Selection Committee, headed by the District Magistrate. Objections were, however, invited from the candidates, whose names figured in the select list. Certain objection was apparently received in respect of genuineness of the certificates of the petitioner. It is evident from Letter dated 01.01.2020, issued by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Hathua that the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation on 09.01.2020 in view of the objection raised against her and to appear before the Licensing Authority with all original documents/certificates. It was clearly mentioned in the said Communication dated 01.01.2020 that in the event no explanation was received, it would be considered that the petitioner did not have anything to say in respect of the objection raised against her and in such circumstances, the objection, raised against her, shall be sustained. The petitioner has not stated in the writ petition that she replied to the said Communication dated 01.01.2020, though there is averment in the writ application that the petitioner had appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer with her certificates on 09.01.2020 and that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority had verified the documents and expressed his satisfaction. 3. Respondent No 9 has subsequently been granted license to run the Public Distribution System shop on the basis of the selection process in question. 4. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the selection list dated 30.12.2020 whereby name of Respondent No 9 had been recommended for grant of license. It is the petitioner’s case that the respondents failed to verify the certificates of the petitioner and without issuing any communication, they rejected the petitioner’s candidature on invalid ground of the petitioner’s certificates being vague and fraudulent. 5. In response to specific query made by this Court as to whether the petitioner had submitted any explanation in response to the said Communication dated 01.01.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner has answered in negative. There is no such explanation on record. 6. 5. In response to specific query made by this Court as to whether the petitioner had submitted any explanation in response to the said Communication dated 01.01.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner has answered in negative. There is no such explanation on record. 6. It is apparent from the records that it was specifically mentioned in the said Communication dated 01.01.2020 that in case the petitioner failed to submit her explanation and produce the certificates, the objection, raised against her, shall be accepted and the petitioner’s claim shall be rejected. Since the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity, granted to her by way of submitting explanation, through the said Notice dated 01.01.2020, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot assail the action of the respondents in refusing to accept the petitioner’s candidature upon sustaining the objection raised against her in relation to selection in question. 7. In our view, in the backdrop of the facts noted above, this writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.