IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9638 of 2008 1. Ashok Kumar, son of Late Kishori Lal Sah, resident of Mohalla- Mirjapur (Sakama Pool) Old Ward No.12, New Ward no. 20, P.S. Kila Ghat, District- Darbhanga 2. Leela Devi, wife of Sri Binay Kumar Purbey, resident of Mohalla- Alinagar, Ward No.1, P.S. L.N.Mithila University, District- Darbhanga 3. Abdul Kudus, son of Late Jainul Haque, resident of Mohalla- Bahadurganj, Old Ward No. 26, New Ward No. 38, P.S. Laheriyasarai, District- Darbhanga 4. Samir Kumar, son of Sri Sarbjeet Narayan, resident of Mohalla- Gudari Bazar, Old Ward No.33, New Ward No. 41, P.S. Laheriyasarai, District- Darbhanga 5. Anjani Kumar, son of Late Kalika Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Gudari Bazar, Old Ward No.33, new ward No. 40, P.S. Laheriyasarai, District- Darbhanga …………… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Commerce, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Collector, Darbhanga 4. The District Supply Officer, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga ……………… Respondents ----------- For the petitioners: M/S Birendra Prasad Verma, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, Yogendra Kumar and R.N.Roy, Advocates. For the State: Mrs. Mamta Kumari, AC to GP VII ----------- 3. 30.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 8.7.2003 contained in memo no. 1254 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga, respondent no. 5 by which he has cancelled the agreement of the petitioners for running shops under the Public Distribution System. The grievance of the petitioners is that the aforesaid action has been taken purportedly pursuant to letter contained in 2 memo no. 1862 dated 11.6.2003 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Commerce, Government of Bihar on the ground that the Government directions for reserving dealerships for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes up to the prescribed percentage has not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to the same memo no. 1254 dated 8.7.2003, which was passed cancelling the agreement of as many as 28 dealers, six of the dealers had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 7838/2003 (Taleshwar Jha ‘Rahi’ & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & ors.) which was allowed by the order dated 5.4.2004 (Annexure-4) of this Court holding that the order was vitiated since no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners of that case and it was further directed that the petitioners of that case shall appear before the Sub- Divisional Officer who after giving an opportunity to them shall take fresh decision in accordance with law. Thereafter in the case of the petitioners of that case, again an order dated 3.7.2004 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer rejecting their claims against which they again filed CWJC No. 9305/2004 which was allowed by order dated 20.3.2007 of this Court reported in 2007(Supp.) PLJR 258 by which the order dated 3.7.2004 was set aside and it was directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to carry on business and to receive supplies subject to their holding valid licences. This Court noticed that the order canceling the dealership agreement of the said petitioners had left them with valid licences but no business and as a 3 result there would be no supply made to them rendering the licences illusory. It was further noticed that in his order dated 3.7.2004 the SDO had not discussed the facts as to the total number of licencees in the area and which category held what number of licences to arrive at a determination that the petitioners allegedly held licence in excess of the declared policy and accordingly held that the order was clearly perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cases of the petitioners are evidently covered by the earlier decisions of this Court in its orders dated 5.4.2004 and 20.3.2007. In fact, it is pointed out by learned counsel that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents, in para-17, it is admitted that on the basis of the number of shops in Darbhanga Sadar being 246 in number, the shops of Scheduled Castes should have been 38 in number but, as a matter of fact, 42 persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes are running the shops which is in excess of that provided by the order of reservation. However, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the decision of this Court dated 20.3.2007 these petitioners also approached the Sub-Divisional Officer with their separate representation on 28.5.2008 but no action is being taken by respondent no.5, the SDO on the said representations. This Court is surprised at the attitude of the Government officials who do not consider representation of similarly situated persons in the light of orders passed by this Court but 4 compel each and every such person to approach this Court, crowding unnecessarily the dockets of this Court. It is evident from the admissions made in the counter affidavit, which fact is also asserted by the petitioners in the writ petition, that the action of the authorities in relying upon the policy decision was wholly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise the case of these petitioners is clearly covered by the orders dated 5.4.2004 and 20.3.2007 passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by Taleshwar Jha ‘Rahi’ and others and there can be no reason why the petitioners whose cases are on identical footing were not similarly treated as the petitioners of those cases by respondent no.5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.7.2003 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is quashed. As the matter has already been adjudicated by this Court, a similar direction is issued in the case of these petitioners that they shall be entitled to carry on business and to receive supplies subject to their holding valid licences. It is further made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents to consider and pass fresh orders in accordance with law if they so deem fit in order to implement their policy decision. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)