Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
Anju Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:–Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul Haque for the State.
2. The petitioner was adjudged the most suitable candidate for being granted licence for one of the vacant shops for which advertisement had been issued.
3. The petitioner appears to have been recommended but because of her father-in-law being another PDS licensee, licence was not issued to her in view of the proscription provided under Rule 11(i) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The aforesaid order was passed in 2017.
4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before this Court taking the plea that as on date, the father-in-law of the petitioner was not alive and, therefore, the dis-entitlement under 11(i) would not be applicable to her.
5. Taking this ground into consideration, a Bench of this Court set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the licensing authority to take a fresh decision in the matter.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, again the licensing authority has held that at the time when decision was initially taken for grant of licence, the petitioner was not entitled to be granted licen
Incomplete applications for licenses can be validly rejected, and familial relationships under specific provisions do not disqualify candidates unless explicitly stated.
Availability of alternative remedy and the court's discretion not to entertain the writ petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
