AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the Writ petition for the following reliefs:
“For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for setting aside the order dated 26.06.2018, the selection list contained in Annexure-6 for Public Distribution System Dealership for Barnama Panchayat by which petitioner's candidature has been rejected on erroneous grounds against the principles/guide lines and also for commanding the respondents to select the petitioner for Dealership of Public Distribution System for Barnama Panchayat, which is under unreserved quota.”
The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that an advertisement was issued for appointment of PDS Dealership for Barnama Panchayat, Nawada. The petitioner, a married woman, applied for the dealership and was found to be the most qualified candidate. However, her candidature was not considered on the ground that her father was already holding a PDS dealership in the same Panchayat. The petitioner contends that, under the applicable guidelines, a married daughter is not included in the definition of “family” and, therefore, the dealership of her father could not be a ground to disqualify her. Her objection was not accepted and respondent no.6 was selected for the dealership.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions and was admittedly the most qualified candidate. It is submitted that the authorities have wrongly applied the definition of “family” by treating the petitioner as part of her father’s family despite her being a married woman residing separately. The Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is arbitrary and contrary to the applicable guidelines.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the candidature of all eligible applicants, including the petitioner, was duly considered by the District Selection Committee, Nawada, and respondent no.6 was unanimously selected for the PDS dealership of Barnama Panchayat. It is submitted that the petitioner was not selected as her father was already holding a PDS dealership in the same Gram Panchayat and there was also an issue regarding her domicile, as she was residing at her parental house after marriage. The Learned counsel submits that the selection was made in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines and calls for no interference by this Court. The Writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
The Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 adopts the submissions advanced by the Learned counsel for the State.
At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues involved in the present writ petition have already been considered and decided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19291 of 2019 (Mamta Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), vide order dated 04.03.2025. It is, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Mamta Kumari (supra).
Heard the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
In Mamta Kumari (supra) this Court has held as follows:
“9.For better appreciation of the facts, Clause 11 of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order 2016 is quoted hereinbelow:
“11.Disqualification of getting a fair price shop license
(i)No fair price shop license shall be granted to more than one member in a joint family. Father, mother, brother, brother's wife, husband, wife, son, son's wife and step brother shall come in the definition of the family
(ii)A mukhia, a sarpanch, a panch, a ward member, a member of a panchayat samiti, a member of a district board, an MLA, a Member of Legislative Council, a member of Parliament, and an elected member of municipal bodies shall not be eligible for allotment of a fair price shop during his tenure as such capacity.
iii) An owner of a flour mill and his near relatives shall not be allotted a fair price shop.
iv). A minor or a lunatic or an insolvent shall not be allotted a fair price shop.
(v)A person finally convicted by the court under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or in any other criminal case shall not be allotted a fair price shop.
(vi)A person holding a post of profit in the Government shall not be allotted a fair price shop.”
10.The Learned Counsel counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s application was rejected solely on the grounds that her mother-in-law is a licensee of a moving Kerosene Oil vendor. It was further argued that the petitioner’s mother-in-law was granted a license under the Bihar Trade Articles License Unification Order, 1984 (License No. 1/2005) but she was never granted a license for a PDS shop. The Learned Counsel counsel also stated that, under Clause 11 of the Bihar Targeted (Control) Order 2016, there is a restriction on granting a PDS license to a daughter-in-law if the mother-in-law is a PDS dealer. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s mother-in-law is not a PDS dealer. Additionally, it was submitted that the petitioner and her mother-in-law have been living separately for a long time, as evidenced by a certificate issued by a member of the Nagar Parishad.
11.At this juncture, the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by this Bench in CWJC No. 13096 of 2016 (Renu Lata Kumari vs. The State of Bihar), wherein similar issues were involved. The Hon'ble Court had been pleased to allow the aforesaid writ petition, and accordingly, the petitioner prayed that since this matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition may also be disposed of on the same terms and conditions.
12.In view of the fact that this matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, the Writ application is disposed of, in light of the judgment passed in Renu Lata Kumari (supra). Accordingly, this Court, hereby, sets aside the proceedings of the meeting dated 19.12.2018 of the District Selection Committee, chaired by respondent No. 3, specifically regarding the decision taken under proceeding No. 14 concerning Ward No. 24, Lakhisarai.
13.The respondents are directed to consider the material submitted by the petitioner and re-evaluate the petitioner’s candidature for appointment as a PDS dealer for Ward No. 24.
14.With the aforesaid observation, this Writ application is disposed off.”
In view of the fact that this matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, the Writ application is disposed of, in light of the judgment passed in Mamta Kumari (supra). Accordingly, this Court, hereby, sets aside the order dated 26.06.2018 of the District Selection Committee, regarding the decision taken for Barnama Panchayat.
The respondents are directed to consider the material submitted by the petitioner and re-evaluate the petitioner’s candidature for appointment as a PDS dealer for Barnama Panchayat.
With the aforesaid observation, this Writ application is disposed off.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.