AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 07-08-2026
The Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
(a)To direct the respondent authorities to cancel the of PDS License No.253/07 of respondent no.6 who not only deprived/ deprive the petitioner but also violated the guideline/ Policy of the state.
(b)To direct the respondent authority to punish the erring person who evolved to mis-utilization of govt. policy and made its as "money production machine "and usurped the bread of poor citizen.
(c)To impose heavy cost upon the respondent no.6 who deliberately and intentionally violating the guide line of policy under essential commodities Act.
(d)To direct the respondent authority to appoint a gentle and law abiding person as PDS dealer for Neema village.
(e)Any other relief(s) for which petitioner entitled under the law.
The brief facts, as culled out from the Writ petition, are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Neema, Nadwan Gram Panchayat, Block-Dhanarua, District-Patna, and Respondent No. 6 is the PDS dealer under whom the petitioner and others residents of the village are consumers.
It is the specific contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of Respondent No. 6 is involved in criminal cases and has been arrested on several occasions. It is alleged that Respondent No. 6 was not distributing essential commodities such as food grains, kerosene oil and other materials to the beneficiaries. In this regard, a complaint was made before the District Magistrate, but no action was taken by the authorities. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition.
On the other hand, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the State as well as Respondent No. 6, wherein it has been stated that complaints were received from various persons alleging irregularities on the part of Respondent No. 6, including charging of excess prices and supply of lesser quantities.
In light of such complaints, the Assistant District Supply Officer conducted an inspection of the shop of Respondent No. 6, on 18.04.2018, and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi on 20.04.2018. In the said report, it was mentioned that although the shop was open, Respondent No. 6 was not present, and her husband was found running the shop. It was further stated that despite demand, the stock register and other records were not produced, and consequently physical verification of stock could not be conducted.
Pursuant to the said report, a show cause notice was issued to Respondent No. 6, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi on 25.04.2018 (Memo No. 193).
Pursuant to it, Respondent No. 6 submitted her reply along with other documents on 15.06.2018, stating that she was absent due to the marriage ceremony of her son and that during such period her husband was managing the shop. She also submitted an application seeking transfer of certain beneficiaries on account of alleged disturbances and complaints. Pursuant to the said application, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi, vide Letter No. 55 dated 19.07.2018, transferred 12 consumers to another shop.
Thereafter, upon considering the reply submitted by Respondent No. 6 and the materials on record, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi, vide Order/Letter No. 214 dated 01.07.2019, accepted the explanation furnished by Respondent No. 6 and issued a warning to her to run the shop in accordance with the rules. It was also noted that certain consumers have already been transferred to another shop.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions of both parties and materials available on record, it appears that, on the basis of complaints, an enquiry was conducted and necessary action was taken against Respondent No. 6 and some of consumers have been transferred to another shop. However, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has not been included in the list of consumers transferred and that he continues to have grievances against Respondent No. 6.
Taking into consideration that the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer are part of the selection committee, this Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner continues to have any grievance regarding irregularities or illegalities, he may file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner, who is the appropriate authority to consider such grievances. The limitation aspect of preferring the complaint shall liberally be construed by the Divisional Commissioner as the Writ petition is filed in the year 2019.
Therefore, this Court directs the petitioner to file complaint as per Clause 5(iv) of BTSO, 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In turn, the Divisional Commissioner shall the consider, all the relevant documents and grounds raised by the petitioner and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months from date of filing of such application.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of.