IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4549 of 2009 SHAKIR AHMAD @ PAPPU, son of Jahid Ahmad, resident of village- Begumpur(Birpur) Panchayat, P.S.-Sadar (Muffasil), District-Purnea. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Purnea. 2. The S.D.O.-cum-Licencing Officer, Sadar, Purnea. 3. The District Supply Officer, Purnea. 4. Block Supply Officer-cum-Marketing Officer, Purnea 5. Ajit Kumar Bhagat, son of Ram Nath Bhagat, resident of Pokha Riya, P.S.-Muffasil, Ranipatra, District-Purnea. …….Respondents. ----------- 04. 04.02.2010 Petitioner claims to be belonging to extremely backward category person. Being a resident of Birpur Panchayat under Purnea District, he made an application for being appointed as a dealer under Public Distribution System. His application has been rejected by the District Supply Officer which has been affirmed by the Collector, Purnea in appeal which has brought the petitioner to this Court. While petitioner’s application was under consideration, petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 5 who may be of backward class was given the dealership. State has filed counter affidavit. Respondent No. 5 has appeared. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of Admission itself. One thing is to be seen is what is the number of dealerships that are available at the place. Petitioner applied 2 for information under RTI and the information given to him has been appended to the writ petition. The information clearly states that five dealerships are available out of which only three are functional. Thus as per the State’s own record two dealerships are lying vacant. A perusal of the order of the District Supply Officer and the Collector, Purnea would show that both these Officers are under a misapprehension of facts that in all there are four dealerships available. That is the first fundamental mistake. The second thing that is apparent from the order aforesaid is that both the parties have said that there is one dealership available for extremely backward cast which would be accordingly considered. It appears either they have ignored the claim of the petitioner or they have forgotten that the petitioner’s application was on the ground that he was from extremely backward cast and if that be so then there is no reason why the dealership be not given to him. I fail to understand why Authorities function in such a casual manner. In the counter affidavit also an assurance is given that petitioner would be considered for dealership. In view of the facts noted above, it is now clear that there is at least one dealership that is available and that too for extremely backward cast and those criteria are dully fulfilled by the petitioner. I, see no reason why petitioner can not be given the said dealership especially in view of the 3 stand of the Collector himself in his order and in the counter affidavit. Appointment of Respondent No. 5 as a backward person belonging to backward community need not be disturbed as, as per the RTI information five dealerships are available for that place and not four as is being asserted by the Collector and the District Supply Officer. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to hold that denial of dealership of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and the petitioner is entitled to dealership in view of the facts as noted above. The District Supply Officer is accordingly directed to act in accordance with law and the observation as made above. The writ petition stands disposed off. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)