KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed that the petitioner's father-in-law was a licensee under the Public Distribution System as a dealer to run a PDS shop. It is also not disputed that when he died on 17.11.2010 his licence was valid and operative. After his death, petitioner, being the widow daughter-in-law, filed an application on 4.1.2011 for transfer of the licence in her name on compassionate grounds. Her application was considered in the District Level Selection Committee on 28.6.2012 and was rejected on the ground that licensee should have been of less than 55 years of age at the time of his death to make petitioner eligible for transfer of the licence in her name on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amendment in the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 came through gazette notification of the Department dated 15.7.2011 in which for the first time it was laid down that for consideration of applications for transfer of licence on compassionate ground the death of the original licensee should have occurred within 55 years of age. He submits that when the father-in-law of the petitioner died and the petitioner applied for transfer of the licence, this condition was not there in the Control Order. Hence the application of the petitioner was required to be considered as the law prevailed on the date of death of her father-in-law. In support of this submission, he places reliance on two orders of this Court dated 6.9.2012 and 1.3.2013 passed respectively in CWJC Nos. 3809 or 2011 and 20331 of 2011.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed in which the only objection of the respondents is that the deceased licensee had not died within 55 years of age. Hence, petitioner was not eligible for consideration of her application for transfer of the licence in her name on compassionate grounds.

(3.) Cause of action arose to the petitioner on the death of her father-in-law. Hence, law, as applicable in the matter on that date, shall be applicable in the case of the petitioner also. This view has already been affirmed by the two Benches of this Court in the aforesaid orders relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is therefore allowed. The resolution of the State Level Selection Committee dated 28.6.2012, as contained in Annexure-1, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed. The Committee is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and taking into account the orders of this Court as noticed above.