AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner earlier approached this Court thrice, first in W.P.C.
No.4641 of 2012 seeking a direction upon the Respondents to grant
PDS license for the village Soharkala under Pagar Panchayat in the
District of Chatra. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra was directed to
consider the petitioner''s representation in accordance with law within
a time frame by the order dated 19.2.2013 passed in the said case.
Cont. Case(Civil) No. 742 of 2013 was dropped by the order dated
12.9.2014 (Annexure-6) on passing of a reasoned order dated
3.4.2013 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra rejecting the
petitioner''s request for grant of a PDS license on the ground that 5 th
PDS shop cannot be allowed as per the norms since the required
population of 1000 is not fulfilled. Petitioner again approached this
Court in W.P.C. No.5261 of 2014 challenging the said order. However
at the outset, on the objection taken by the Respondent State due to
availability of appeal, the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty
to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within a period
of 4 weeks. It was further observed that appeal if filed would be
decided on its own merit without being influenced by the dismissal of
the writ petition. Petitioner now has approached this Court to direct
the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to decide the appeal within a time
frame. Annexure-7 is said to be the appeal preferred on 10.10.2014
even before W.P.C No. 5261 of 2014 was decided. This fact according
to learned counsel for the petitioner could not be brought to the
notice of the Court when the writ petition was heard. However, it is
prayed that if the appeal is filed and pending before Respondent
no.2, Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, he should be directed to decide
it within a time frame.
Learned counsel for the Respondent has also referred to the
aforesaid fact and submitted that writ petitioner herself is not diligent
in complying with the observation of this Court in W.P.C. No. 5261 of
2014.
Be that as it may, if the petitioner has preferred an appeal
before the Respondent no.2 against the order dated 3.4.2013 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra, the same be considered on its
own merit in accordance with law and as per the observation made in
W.P.C. No. 5261 of 2014 within a reasonable time of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.