IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14420 of 2007 ANIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE REMESHWAR SHARMA, BRAHMPUR, BHAGWAN BAZAAR, SARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECY, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, SARAN 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SADAR CHAPRA 4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, BSFC SUPPLIES CORPORATION, SARAN & 5. THE MARKETING OFFICER, CHAPRA TOWN. ----------- 3 10.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Bihar State Financial Corporation. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of order issued by the S.D.O. Sadar Chapra vide memo no. 1229 dated 25.9.2007 cancelling allotment of food grains to the petitioner so far it related to 58 Antyodaya Anna Yojna (AAY) ration cards. The petitioner is a licencee of retail shop under the PDS dealership holding licence number 2 of 2006. The S.D.O. Chapra tagged 58 ration cards of AAY scheme with shop of the petitioner vide memo no. 822 dated 2.7.2007. The petitioner deposited necessary bank draft in favour of the BSFC. However, the District supply officer vide his memo no. 1084 dated 21.8.2007 directed the S.D.O. to maintain status quo in the matter of tagging of 58 AAY ration card holders with petitioner’s shop with information to the District Magistrate for its approval for change, if any. The S.D.O. Chapra Sadar vide Memo no. 1229 dated 25.9.2007directed the District Manager, BSFC to supply - 2 - food grains for the month of July onward to the previous fair price shop dealers and not to make supply to petitioner. The petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contention, he relied on Clause 7 (ix) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001(in short the Control order, 2001). Clause 7(ix) of the Control order, 2001 reads as follows- All consumers of APL, BPL and Antyodaya living within the area earmarked for a FPS dealer should be tagged to such a FPS dealer. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit stating therein that on an application of petitioner various ration card holders under AAY scheme were tagged with petitioner’s shop. He further submits that 6 PDS dealers including the petitioner approached the Marketing officer In- charge, Chapra Town and filed petitions for tagging their Ration card of AAY scheme also with their shops. The Marketing officer In-charge, Chapra Town submitted a report to the S.D.O., Sadar Chapra, respondent no. 3 suggesting that AAY Ration cards should be tagged with the PDS shops of the petitioner and others also. Respondent no.3 agreeing with the report and proposal of the Marketing officer issued a fresh tagging order of AAY Ration cards under memo no. 822 dated 2.7.2007. When the aforesaid matter came to the notice of the District Magistrate, he instructed District Supply officer, Saran, Chapra to inform the S.D.O., Sadar, respondent no. 3 - 3 - that order issued under his letter no. 822 dated 2.7.2007 was against instruction issued under his letter no. 1914C dated 15.9.2002. In compliance to the order of District Magistrate’s order, respondent no. 3 instructed District Manager, BSFC, Chapra to Supply food grains to previous PDS dealers for the month of July, 2007 and onwards in which shop of AAY ration card holders were previously tagged and directed Marketing officer, In-charge Chapra Town to see that the food grains for the month of July, 2007 and onwards are supplied to the previous PDS dealers only and amount deposited by these six PDS dealers be refunded to them in proper manner and on proper receipt. Having heard the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has been appointed as a retail PDS dealer and a number of retail card holders have also been tagged with the shop. It was only on his application that some more ration cards holders under the AAY scheme were tagged with the shop in violation of the instruction of the District Magistrate, contained in his letter no.1914C dated 15.9.2002. Furthermore, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot claim attachment of various ration cards issued to the respective card holders under the AAY scheme. Already a quota of various ration card holders have been tagged to his shop, pursuant to the agreement and their licences. Reliance placed by the petitioner to Clause 7(ix) of the Control Order, 2001 is misconceived and - 4 - the same is of no aid to him. As a result, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Money deposited by the petitioner should be returned, after adjusting the price of food grains issued to him by the BSFC, if any. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)