IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6228 of 2010 1. SHIV SHANKAR SINGH S/O SRI NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- ALAWALPUR, P.S.- GAURI CHAK, DISTT.- PATNA AT PRESENT WORKING AS UP-MUKHIYA - CUM - CO- ORDINATOR OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MONITORING COMMITTEE, GRAM PANCHAYAT, ALAWALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (SUPPLY), PATNA 5. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (S.D.O.), PATNA CITY, DISTT.- PATNA 6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER FATUHA BLOCK, P.S.- FATUHA, DISTT.- PATNA 7. DILIP RABI DAS S/O SRI DINESHWAR RABIDAS R/O VILL.- ALAWALPUR, PANCHAYAT ALAWALPUR, P.S.- GAURICHAK, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- 03. 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The writ petition was filed on 9.4.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. The second copy was to facilitate expeditious filing of a counter affidavit to enable the respondents to assist the Court in timely dispensation of justice. Today when the matter is taken up one year later, learned counsel for the State prays for adjournment to seek instruction and file a counter affidavit. This Court has already observed in another proceeding that the officers of the State Government appear to be harbouring under a misconception that it was their compulsive right to get an 2 adjournment on the first date that the writ petition was taken for filing of counter affidavit irrespective of the date of filing and the long delay that they may have been negligent, whiling away time since the filing of the writ petition not filing the counter affidavit. The attitude of the respondents in stalling the proceeding before the Court is unfortunate. Had a counter affidavit been filed, the writ petition could have been disposed off today in clear terms positively or negatively bringing the litigation to an end. That the controversy continues even after the writ application shall be disposed today, the responsibility shall lie squarely with the respondents. The petitioner alleges that the P.D.S. license for Alawalpur Panchayat has been directed to be given to respondent no.7 contrary to statutory procedures prescribed under Section 2 of the Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 framed under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 mandating it to be routed through a Selection Committee. Reliance is placed on a representation dated 16.11.2009 raising this specific objection in paragraph-3 of the same. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance thereof the State Government in the Department of Food and Civil Supply on 25.1.2010 have also called for a report in this regard which is yet to 3 be submitted. He next submits that District Magistrate himself has approved the grant of license to respondent no.7 as noticed in the order dated 19.2.2010 of the Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Patna. No orders with regard to the license granted to respondent no.7 can be passed at this stage in absence of the said respondent. The writ application is therefore disposed with directions to the District Magistrate, Patna to call for the original records and satisfy himself, if the selection of respondent no.7 was routed through and with the approval of the statutory Selection Committee. If the District Magistrate is so satisfied, he shall pass a brief reasoned order on this aspect. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same he may avail his remedy in accordance with law. Conversely, if the District Magistrate be of the opinion that the selection was not routed through the statutory Selection Committee he shall issue necessary directions to the licensing authority to issue notice to respondent no.7 and then proceed to act in accordance with law. Let the first direction contained in the present order be complied within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The second direction, circumstances warranting, must be 4 complied with within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid directions. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)