IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17073 of 2008 RANJIT KUMAR RAJAK, S/O SHREE UMESHWAR RAJAK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAGHUNATHPUR, P.O. SAIDABAD, P.S.- RANITALAB (BIKRAM) DISTRICT- PATNA. .. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY FOOD SUPPLY AND TRADE DEPARTMENT BIHAR PATNA. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (SUPPLY), PATNA, PATNA COLLECTORATE PATNA. (DISTRICT SUPPLY BRANCH). 4. SUB-DIVISIONALOFFICER, PALIGANJ, PATNA. 5. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PATNA. 6. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, BIKRAM, PATNA. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 13.12.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is an applicant for grant of PDS dealership, he submitted his application sometime in 2004, Annexure-1 on the basis of which after due inquiry recommendation was made for such grant by the in-charge Block Supply Officer, Bikram under letter no. 61, dated 20.9.2004, Annexure-3 to this application. Sub-divisional Officer and the Collector of the District also considered the matter as is evident from letter dated 2.12.2004 and 6.5.2005, Annexures 4 and 5 but till date no final order on the request of the petitioner for grant of dealership has been passed as in the meantime the Additional Collector (Supply) under letter dated 7.8.2008, Annexure-7 directed for fresh inquiry 2 by the Sub-divisional Officer, Paliganj which is contained in Annexure-7 to this application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that matter having been earlier considered by the Sub-divisional Officer as also the Collector of the District there was no occasion for the Additional Collector Supply, Patna to direct for fresh inquiry by the Sub-divisional Officer, Paliganj. I see substance in the submission. 3. Counsel for the State however, submitted that the competent authority to consider the grant of the PDS dealership is not the Collector or the Sub- divisional Officer but a committee comprising of the Senior Officers of the District. Even accepting the submission of the counsel for the State the recommendation made by the Sub-divisional Officer, Paliganj, Patna and Collector, Patna for grant of PDS dealership in favour of the petitioner should have been placed for consideration before the appropriate committee. Counsel for the State then submitted that the application of the petitioner was defective as such could not have been placed before the committee. Aforesaid submission is also rejected. If the application was defective petitioner should have been called upon to remove the defect in his application. Accordingly, I direct the Sub-divisional Supply who is the Secretary of 3 the committee to place the recommendation of the Sub- divisional Officer and Collector before the committee for appropriate decision in the matter, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before the Secretary of the committee. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)