AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
To quash the order dated 19.03.2018 passed through Memo No. 251 at Sl. No. 17 by which the learned District Magistrate, Sitamarhi (Respondent No. 2) has refused to grant P. D. S license to the petitioner on compassionate ground. (Annexure-6).
To direct the respondents No. 2 to reconsider granting of PDS license on compassionate ground in accordance with law.
To pass any other appropriate order / orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper for the end of justice.
The brief facts, as culled out from the writ petition, are that the petitioner’s father, Mahadeo Sah, was a dealer of a fair price shop having licence bearing Registration No. 23/88 of 32/08-12. The PDS shop was situated at Kharka, Block Runnisaidpur, District Sitamarhi. The father of the petitioner died on 28.06.2010, leaving behind his wife Kailsiya Devi and his sole son, i.e. the petitioner (Shiv Kumar Sah). The petitioner applied for grant of PDS licence on compassionate ground along with the death certificate and matriculation certificate before Respondent No. 4 on 22.07.2010.
On 10.08.2013, vide Memo No. 660, Respondent No. 4 demanded the original documents.
Vanshawali issued by the Circle Officer,
Aniojan Certificate issued by Circle Officer,
Death certificates of the parents.
Pursuant to it, the petitioner submitted the aforesaid documents, and the matter for grant of PDS licence on compassionate ground was placed before Respondent No. 2. However, Respondent No. 2 refused to grant PDS licence to the petitioner on the ground that the application was not submitted within the stipulated period, as mentioned in Departmental Notification No. 1750 dated 10.03.2016, vide Memo No. 251 dated 19.03.2018.
A detailed counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The contents of the counter affidavit disclose that the father of the petitioner died on 28.06.2010 and the petitioner applied for PDS licence on 22.07.2010 on compassionate ground. The matter was inquired into by the Block Supply Officer, Runnisaidpur, and a report was submitted vide Letter No. 159 dated 07.12.2010. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar, vide Memo No. 660 dated 10.08.2013, asked the petitioner to submit the documents in original, which were duly submitted by the petitioner.
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
Considering the rival contentions of both the parties, it is evident that the petitioner submitted his application within the stipulated period of time as prescribed under the rules. However, it took more than two years to place the matter before the committee. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit relevant documents, which were duly submitted by him. In spite of it, the Selection Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that the application was not submitted within the stipulated period.
The record reveals that the petitioner’s father died on 28.06.2010 and the petitioner applied on 22.07.2010. The inquiry report of the Block Development Officer clearly disclose that his name was recommended for compassionate appointment. Despite this, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that all documents were not submitted along with the application.
If the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in accordance with law, he shall be considered for appointment by Respondent No. 2.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 19.03.2018, of the District Magistrate deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed directing the District Magistrate to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of the order copy of this Writ petition.