IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16377 of 2009 1. MANOJ KUMAR RAM S/O SRI BASUDEO RAM R/O DUMARIYA ESTATE, P.S. SIKARPUR, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 3. 29.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.10.2009 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran. The impugned order cancels the recommendation made in his favour for appointment as a Public Distribution System Dealer (hereinafter referred to as ‘PDS’). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of a Fair Price Dealer is controlled by the Fair Price Shop Order 2007 framed under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001.The Selection Committee under Rule 2 recommended his name for appointment. There shall be a presumption that all enquiries were duly made and a satisfaction of the eligibility for grant of the dealership was arrived at. Rule 2.6 specifies the category of persons to whom the dealership cannot be awarded. The impugned order of rejection is not based on any of them. The conduct of the licensee is provided for under Rule 4. The applicability of the same shall arise only after the licence has been granted which in any event remains subject to the powers of suspension and cancellation by the authorities under Rule 7. The impugned order of rejection is based at the behest of a political functionary only beyond statutory provisions. There can be no occasion for testing his suitability 2 after the recommendation and before commencing discharge of duties as PDS Dealer. The respondents in their counter affidavit state that the local political functionary faced a lot of opposition in her constituency against the selection of the petitioner. The petitioner bears an anti social character and harasses the people. He is a man of hot temperament. He is an accused in a Police case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He does not have a fair character. A mere recommendation for grant of licence may not vest a right in the petitioner to grant of licence. Yet, after selection made by the statutory committee, there has to be compelling and cogent reasons to deny him the benefit of recommendation. The recommendation cannot be withheld for reasons not germane in the law governing selection. Surely it cannot be withheld arbitrarily for reasons beyond terms of the rules regulating grant of licence. The contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit is primarily vague. No details of his unbecoming conduct as a human being have been mentioned in the counter affidavit except for a bald and vague statement allegedly at the behest of a political functionary. His implication in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is yet to achieve finality. There is no statement that he has been convicted. To deny the dealership on that ground, if it be available to the respondents, shall tantamount to punishing him without a trial. The grant of dealership is not akin to grant of a character certificate as appears tobe suggested by the respondents. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the matter from all aspects this Court is satisfied that the impugned order of rejection of his candidature dated 27.10.2009 suffers from arbitrariness and is not sustainable. Once the petitioner has been granted a licence, he always remains under the disciplinary control of the authorities with regard to continuance of the licence in light of the statutory provisions. The impugned order dated 28.10.2009 is accordingly set aside. The respondents are now directed to act with the recommendation dated 8.11.2008 in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)