IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11954 of 2023

======================================================

Shambhu Sharan Singh Son of Late Lal Bihari Singh, Resident of Village-

Kurur, Police Station- Karakat, District- Rohtas

... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply

Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority, Bikramganj,

District- Rohtas.

4.

The Assistant District Supply Officer, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas.

5.

The Block Supply Officer, Karakat, District- Rohtas.

6.

Harendra Prasad Singh, Dealer, Public Distribution System, Licence No.

29/07, Village- Kurur, Panchayat- Chiksil, Police Station- Karakat, District-

Rohtas. ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner

:

M/s Jitendra Prasad Singh and

Rajeev Kumar, Advs.

For the Respondents

:

Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (Sc4)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

ORAL ORDER

2

16-10-2023

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s) :

“………… for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs

directing the respondent Licensing Authority to cancel

the licence of Public Distribution System of

Respondent No.6 bearing License No.29/07 in

exercise the power under Rule 27 of the Bihar

Targeted Public Distribution System (Control)

Order,2016 hereinafter referred to as the Control

Order, 2016 for violation of the terms and conditions

of the licence as well as duties and responsibilities of

the licensee prescribed Under Rule 14 of the Control

Order, 2016 and/or to grant of any other relief/reliefs

for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts

and circumstances of the case.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.11954 of 2023(2) dt.16-10-2023

2/5

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that

the petitioner is a consumer who is aggrieved by the inaction of

the official respondents in taking action against the Respondent

No. 6, who is PDS license holder. Learned counsel has stated

that though the petitioner has made several complaints to the

authorities, the authorities are not taking any action for

cancelling the license of the Respondent No. 6. Though an

enquiry was held and it was found that the license of the

Respondent No. 6 is liable to be cancelled the authorities till

date have not passed any order cancelling the license of the

Respondent No. 6 but only issued a warning to the Respondent

No. 6. Therefore, learned counsel has sought direction from this

Hon’ble Court to direct the authorities to take necessary action

against the Respondent No. 6 by cancelling his license.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very

maintainability of the Writ Petition and stated that the petitioner

does not have any locus standi to file the present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner cannot be termed

as an aggrieved party, therefore, the question of invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India does not arise. That the petitioner is only a consumer of

Patna High Court CWJC No.11954 of 2023(2) dt.16-10-2023

3/5

the PDS (ration) shop operated by the Respondent No. 6 and if

he has any grievance he can ventilate his grievance before the

Sub Divisional Officer and in this case the Sub Divisional

Officer duly taking into consideration the complaint of the

petitioner has taken necessary action against the Respondent

No. 6 by cautioning him. That once the consumer gives a

complaint to the authority concerned about any discrepancies or

illegalities committed