Administrative actions taken without legal jurisdiction are nullities and cannot stand.

ORDER :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 151 dated 19.03.2015 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi (the respondent no. 5), whereby the PDS License No. 02 of 2010 issued to ‘Shakti Mahila Mandal, Panchayat-Danekera, Block- Lapung, of which the petitioner is the President, has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) in PDS Appeal No. 01 R 15/2015-16 as well as the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) in P.D.S. Revision No. 70 of 2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the impugned order dated 19.03.2015 has been passed by the respondent no. 5 prior to coming into force of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2017 and at the time of passing of the same, the State Government had not issued any control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act, 1955”) to regulate sale and distribution of the commodities relating to the Public Distribution Shops. Hence, the said order passed by the respondent no. 5 cancelling the PDS License of the petitioner being without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission, places reliance on the order/judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed in the case of Dilip Kumar Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and other analogous cases reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 124 and submits that the said issue has already been considered in those cases and the impugned orders cancelling the PDS Licenses of the said petitioners having been passed prior to coming into force of the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2017, have been quashed being without jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though contests the present writ petition on merit, yet he accepts that the issue of jurisdiction of the licensing authority (the respondent no. 5 herein), as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of not notifying any Control Order under Section 3 of the Act, 1955 from 2001, which was subsequently notified in the year 2017 i.e., the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2017, has been decided by this Court in the batch of writ petitions i.e., Dilip Kumar Ram (supra) and other analogous cases.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order/judgment dated 16.01.2025 rendered in the case of Dilip Kumar Ram (supra) and other analogous cases, the relevant paragraphs of the same are quoted:

“12. Though the respondents in their counter affidavits filed in the respective cases have also made factual averments denying and disputing the cases made out by the petitioners on the basis of the facts of each of those, however, keeping in view that learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the legal issue that the impugned orders passed by the licensing authorities cancelling the P.D.S licenses of the petitioners are without jurisdiction as the State of Jharkhand had not notified any Control Order pursuant to promulgation of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 by the Central Government and the Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017 was framed in the State of Jharkhand in the year 2017 after passing of the impugned orders by the licensing