Shakti Sahu & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 16 November, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Shakti Sahu & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 16 November, 2022

Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 2061 of 2020
                         ........

Shakti Sahu & Others                   ....   ..... Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....   ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents/State : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III.

........

The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

07/16.11.2022.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III.

Petitioners namely, (1) Shakti Sahu, son of Late Chedi Sahu, resident of Navagarh Ptaratoli, P.O. - Navagarh Ptaratoli, P.S. - Raidih, District - Gumla, Jharkhand (2) Ramesh Kumar, son of Late Bihari Lal, resident of Baraik Mohalla, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. - Gumla, District - Gumla, Jharkhand (3) Sanjeev Kumar, son of Late Ramvalak Prasad, resident of Lohardaga Road, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. - Gumla, District - Gumla, Jharkhand (4) Krishna Prasad Singh, son of Late Bhagwan Singh, resident of Sisai Road, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. - Gumla, District - Gumla, Jharkhand and (5) Pradeep Keshri, son of Dwarika Sahu, resident of Village - Bharno, P.O. & P.S. - Bharno, District - Gumla, Jharkhand have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to issue Order for Lifting and Distribution of Levy Sugar and Edible items within the State of Jharkhand including the Gumla district in favour of the petitioners on approved rate fixed by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, that the petitioners are licensee of public distribution system, there is no grievances against these persons and their licenses have also been renewed, but the State is not giving the order for lifting and distributing of levy sugar and edible items.

-2-

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has submitted, that counter-affidavit has already been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 duly sworn by Director, Food & Consumer Affairs Directorate, Government of Jharkhand annexing the letter issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India as contained in Letter No. 19(2)/2013-SPI dated 17 th May, 2013, whereby it has categorically been stated that with the abolition of levy, the current system of allocation of levy sugar from sugar mills to the States/FCI for meeting the requirements for the PDS will no longer be in existence. The States/UTs will need to devise a transparent system for procurement of sugar from the open market. As levy sugar allocations have been made to cover PDS requirements for the months up to May, 2013, it is imperative that the States take immediate action for procurement of future requirements. The Government of India would provide subsidy @18.50 per kg for the existing allocation of those States which continue to have the Retail Issue Price of Rs. 13.50 per kg at FPS level for the Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is again clarified that the reimbursement by the Central Government will be limited to the quantity based on the existing level of allocations.

Learned counsel for the respondents / State has further submitted, that subsequent thereto, the Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Matters, Government of Jharkhand has issued resolution as contained in Memo No. phuh ¼uhfrxr ekeys½&01@2017&[kkñvkñ 2933@jkWph] fnukad&11@07@17, issued by the Secretary of the Department, whereby it has categorically been stated in para-3 that :

" 03- d`f"k] i'kqikyu ,ao lgdkfjrk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k 253] fnukad 27-01-2016 ds }kjk jkT; esa phuh forj.k ;kstuk ,oa vU; ;kstuk gsrq lkekU; fufonk iz.kkyh dk ifjR;kx djrs gq, NeML ds bZ&IysVQkWeZ dh lsok izkIr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k 2717] fnukad 15-07-2016 }kjk jkT; esa phuh forj.k ;kstuk ds rgr phuh dh iSdsftax esa cnyko dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA"

-3-

Learned counsel for the respondents / State has thus submitted, that the State cannot go beyond the scope that has been given by the Central Government.

Upon which, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners are licensee and the terms and conditions has been changed without hearing the petitioners, as such, the same is bad in law.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials brought on record, it appears that the State Government in compliance of order passed by the Central Government has passed such order, as such, no writ can be issued in favour of the petitioners.

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Office is directed to place the Vakalatnama filed by the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Ranchi in W.P. (C) No. 2861/2020, which has wrongly been placed in this file.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court