IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.322 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 17482 of 2009 ==================================================== Ram Sevak Singh, Son of Sri Ramvilash Singh, resident of Village- Murawatpur, P.S.-Desri, District-Vaishali. …. …. Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Chairman-cum-District Magistrate, District Selection Committee, Vaishali, District-Vaishali. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahnar, District-Vaishali. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Shreekant Labh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Prashat Kashyap, A.C. to GP-18 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 24.2.2011. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th January 2011 passed in above C.W.J.C. No. 17482 of 2009 the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant claims that he had been granted licence for fair price shop under the public distribution scheme by the order made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahnar on 4th September 2006. On the said premise the appellant filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 17482 of 2009 for a direction to the respondents to make allotment of wheat, rice, kerosene oil and other essential commodities to the appellant. In an earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. - 2 - 2231 of 2008 filed by the petitioner in the subject matter, under order dated 7th July 2008 made by the learned single Judge, it was held, “the exercise carried by the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be considered to be in consonance with the procedure laid down by the State authorities”. The learned single Judge noted that the State Government had constituted a District Selection Committee and the licences were to be issued on their recommendation. The learned single Judge held that the appellant had not been granted licence. In absence of a licence issued to the appellant his claim for allotment of food grains and other essential commodities was not sustainable. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge. In absence of a licence granted to the appellant, the appellant had no claim for allotment of the food grains and other essential commodities. Further, the petitioner’s claim based on an order made by the Sub Divisional Officer without the authority of law could not have been sustained. We see no substance in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)