Patna High Court - Orders
Murali Sah @ Murli Pd. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 July, 2014
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Patna High Court CWJC No.20400 of 2012 (10) dt.25-07-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20400 of 2012
======================================================
1. Murali Sah @ Murli Pd. Son Of Sudama Sah Resident Of Village -
Gangauli, Police Station - Simri, District - Buxar
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumraon.
4. The District Marketing Board, Buxar.
5. The Supply Inspector, Marketing Board, Buxar.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad AAG-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
10 25-07-20141. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. Originally, petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of direction to respondents for restoration of Supply Licence No. 634/85 which had been granted to the petitioner's father in the year 1985 but subsequently, I.A. No. 4007 of 2014 has been filed for amendment of the prayer of the writ petition and through the aforesaid interlocutory application petitioner has pleaded new relief for issuance of appropriate Patna High Court CWJC No.20400 of 2012 (10) dt.25-07-2014 2 writ or direction commanding the respondents to quash the order dated 10.04.2012 passed in memo no. 040530/AA/Buxar by the District Magistrate, Buxar by which the concerned authority refused to grant license of P.D.S. shop to the petitioner on compassionate ground treating the application of the petitioner beyond period of limitation as prescribed under Clause 2.5 of Public Distribution System Control Order, 2007.
3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that Annexure-4, the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 reveals that the father of petitioner died on 10.01.2007 and admittedly, the above stated control order of 2007 came into force from 15.02.2007 and, therefore, the aforesaid control order is not applicable in respect of petitioner's case and the application for grant of license of P.D.S. shop to the petitioner was not time barred.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State drew my attention towards Annexure-2 to the writ petition and submitted that a criminal case was registered against the father of the petitioner and after registration of the aforesaid criminal case, his license was cancelled but when father of petitioner got acquittal in the aforesaid criminal case, he applied for restoration of his license on 06.12.2006 and, Patna High Court CWJC No.20400 of 2012 (10) dt.25-07-2014 3 thereafter, the District Magistrate sent the matter to Sub Divisional Officer for consideration and having receipt of the order of the District Magistrate, the Sub Divisional Officer called for a report from the marketing inspector but before receipt of the report, the father of the petitioner died and, therefore, it is apparent that at the time of his death, father of the petitioner was not carrying any license of P.D.S. shop and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the State that there was alternate remedy available to the petitioner but he did not avail the aforesaid remedy and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
6. Admittedly, a criminal case was registered against father of the petitioner and during pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the license of petitioner's father was cancelled. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that in the year 2000, the father of the petitioner got acquittal in the aforesaid criminal case and, thereafter, in the year 2006, he filed a petition before the District Magistrate for restoration of his license and, thereafter, the matter was sent to Sub Divisional Officer who directed the marketing inspector to make local inspection and submit his report which is evident Patna High Court CWJC No.20400 of 2012 (10) dt.25-07-2014 4 from perusal of Annexure-2 to this petition. There is nothing on the record to show that after 2006, the license of petitioner's father was ever restored and admittedly, in the year 2007, petitioner's father died and, therefore, it is obvious from the aforesaid fact that at the time of his death, petitioner's father was not holding any license of P.D.S. shop.
7. In my view, learned counsel appearing for the State rightly submitted that no order for grant of license of P.D.S. shop could be passed in favour of the petitioner on compassionate ground because at the time of his father's death, he was not holding any license of P.D.S. shop. Apart from this, according to Clause 15 of the said order, petitioner has other remedy to challenge the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 and, therefore, I am also of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed being not maintainable. However, if petitioner chooses to challenge the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 before the competent authority in accordance with law, he may do so and if any question of limitation arises in entertaining the appeal/revision against the impugned order dated 26.03.2012, the concerned court shall condone the aforesaid limitation Patna High Court CWJC No.20400 of 2012 (10) dt.25-07-2014 5 taking note of this fact that against the order dated 26.03.2012 petitioner was seeking remedy before wrong forum.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/-
U