IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17482 of 2009 1. RAM SEVAK SINGH S/O SRI RAMVILASH SINGH R/O VILL.- MURAWATPUR, P.S.- DESRI, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE, VAISHALI, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAHNAR DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajiv Kr. Labh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Prshant Kashyap, AC to GP-18 ----------- 2. 7.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to allot him supplies of essential commodities after what is stated to be an appointment as a Public Distribution System dealer. A person recommended for appointment as a dealer and a person appointed as a dealer by issuance of a licence and execution of an agreement between him and the Government stand in different categories. While the former has no legal right to receive supplies, the latter would have so under the terms of the licence. A person only recommended for dealership cannot therefore insist on supplies unless and until he is formally appointed as a dealer. A mere recommendation does not tantamount to appointment. But even a mere recommendation cannot be ignored at convenience and if questioned the respondents have to answer the same. In exercise of powers of 2 judicial review, the Court will not go into the sufficiency of the reason and shall only see whether a reason exists or not germane to the issue. On the own showing of the petitioner he had been recommended for grant of licence. The licence was yet to be issued. No agreement as a dealer of the State Government was executed between the parties. The fact that the petitioner may have deposited the licence fee does not tantamount to the issuance of a licence. Unless and until the licence is actually issued and agreement executed, the respondents are at liberty to rescind their decisions and not to appoint for germane and cogent reasons. The petitioner cannot even claim violation of natural justice as it was only a recommendation which has been withdrawn and not an appointment/selection cancelled. The Court does not consider it necessary to go into the issue as to who is the person competent to appoint, at which time and under which notification. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of the respondents that there was no need for appointment of a P.D.S. dealer at the place for which the petitioner had been recommended given the population base ratio is certainly germane and a policy matter with which the Court shall not interfere. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)