IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11644 of 2008 GANESH DUTT SINGH Son of Ram Vilash Singh, resident of village- Basantpur, P.S. Ara Muffasil, Dist.- Bhojpur. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. 2. District Magistrate Bhojpur Ara, P.S. Ara Town, Dist.- Bhojpur, Ara. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Ara, Bhojpur. 4. Block Supply Officer Ara Sadar, Bhojpur, 5. District Supply Officer Ara, Bhojpur. 6. Marketing Officer Ara, Anchal, Bhojpur. 7. Jai Prakash Yadav Son of Ram Vilash Singh, resident of village- Basantpur, P.S. Ara Muffasil, Dist. Bhojpur, Ara. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State. No order is required to be passed in the interlocutory application, which has been filed by the petitioner. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, the main writ application itself is being disposed of. Writ in question has been filed by the petitioner for a direction upon respondent no.3 the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Ara, Bhojpur to release or allot the essential commodities in favour of the petitioner for which he has deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Without any rhyme and reason it is being alleged that the supply was stopped to the petitioner which should be restored. Stand of the petitioner in the writ application is that he is holder of a regular licence under the P.D.S. scheme and so long as the license subsists he is entitled to receive the allotted quota every month from the respondents. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of respondent State authorities, duly sworn by the Block Supply Officer, Sadar Block, they have stated that the order was passed not to supply - 2 - any food grains or essential commodities to the petitioner on the ground that the original licensee under the P.D.S. scheme was one Jay Prakash Yadav, who belongs to village and Panchayat Mahakampur Balua in the district of Ara. For certain reasons and allegations made against him, his licence came to be cancelled by the licencing authority and to fill up the vacancy, the petitioner, who was in the panel, was allotted the quota and the petitioner continued to operate under the said allotment till the intervention of the District Magistrate in appeal filed by the said Jay Prakash Yadav. The District Magistrate in his order passed in appeal dated 29.02.2008 set aside the order of cancellation of licence of Jay Prakash Yadav and directed renewal of his licence. Under the P.D.S. Control Order once the original licensee’s licence has been restored then obviously the temporary arrangement can not be allowed to continue in area. That is the reason indicated with supporting evidence for stopping supply to the petitioner. The stand is that there is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in this regard, as is evident from what has been stated in earlier part of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the licence, contained in Annexure-3, does not indicate that it was a conditional licence because there is no endorsement but learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing to show that his selection for the licence was in his own right and was not because of the cancellation of the licence of said Jay Prakash Yadav. Grant of licence to the petitioner was to fill up the vaccum. On return of the original licensee - 3 - of the area, on his appeal being allowed, the petitioner will have to be ousted and no order can be passed in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he is used to the benefit of the licence and has created liability and has a family to look after some kind of mercy be shown by the respondents. These are matters to be considered by the respondents depending upon the vacancies and the reservation scheme which have been ordered to be made in such selection by the State. But one thing is clear that the money which has been deposited by the petitioner has to be refunded to him forthwith, if there is no impediment or no dues to be settled in this regard. This writ application stands disposed of with above directions. Uday/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J,)