UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the sub -divisional Officer, Buxar dated 11.6.99 cancelling the licence with respect to a shop under the Public Distribution System. The order has been passed in the light of the decision of the State Government contained in letter of the Additional Secretary, Food, Supplies and Commerce Department vide letter No. 4571 dated 21.8.92. The State Government, it appears, has taken a policy decision not to grant more than one licence under the Public Distribution System to members of the same family and where it has been already granted to cancel the same.

(2.) Shri N.K. Agrawal submitted that issue is settled by decision of this Court in Md. Mumtaj v. State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No. 2492 of 1997(R), reported in 1999 EFR 746. He also relied on Lal Babu Prasad v. State of Bihar 1989 PLJR 125.

(3.) The decision in Md. Mumtaj v. State of Bihar (supra), is of no help to the petitioner. The decision was rendered while considering the validity of the policy decision not to grant licence to a person who is not resident of the Panchayat or ward where the shop is situate. Copy of letter dated 8.10.80 communicating the policy decision has been enclosed with the counter -affidavit as Annexure -A. It appears that in continuation of earlier decision on the point as contained in Food & Supply Department's letter No. 2735 dated 23.3.79, the State Government took a decision not to grant licence in three situations -where the conduct of the person is suspicious or where any member of his family has already been granted licence under the Public Distribution System or if he is not resident of the same Panchayat or ward. The submission of the Counsel was that the circular has been struck down as a whole and therefore, the ground that the members of the same family cannot be granted more than one licence must be held to have become non est. The submission is wholly misconceived. The letter mentioned three separate grounds and the validity of only one of them was under consideration. The question as to whether another member of the same family could be allowed licence under the Public Distribution System was not in issue in that case. The point, therefore, has to be considered -as one of first impression.