Priyanka Bharti vs The State Of Bihar and Ors

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22063 of 2018
======================================================
Priyanka Bharti W/o Santosh Kumar, R/o village- Shreepur Bahadur, P.O
Malahipatti Bahadurpur, P.S Ashok paper Mill, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, District - Darbhanga.
3. The Collector-cum District Magistrate, Daarbhanga
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.
5. The District Supply Officer, Darbhanga.
6. The Block Supply Officer, Haighat, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari
Kumar Rajdeep, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.Raza Ahmad -AAG 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-07-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
“For quashing the
proceeding dated 09.06.2018 passed by
the District Selection Committee by
which the appointment of the Petitioner
as PDS dealer for Panchayat-
Malahipatti Uttari in the Block Hayghat,
Sadar, District- Darbhanga has been
cancelled on the ground that her Gotani
is a dealer and further for quashing the

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
2/9
order contained in Memo No. 400 dated
14.07.2018 passed by the Learned Sub-
Divisional Officer, Sadar Darbhanga by
which the PDS license of the Petitioner
being license No. 03/2018 has been
cancelled and further for quashing the
order dated 21.08.2018 passed in PDS
Case No. 07/2018 by the Commissioner
Darbhanga by which an appeal filed on
behalf of the Petitioner against the
order of the Licensing Authority has
been dismissed as not maintainable and
further be pleased to restore the license
and supply of the Petitioner with
immediate effect.”
2. At the very outset, the Learned
Senior counsel Mr. N.K.Agarwal appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is no longer
res integra . It is contended that the issue stands
squarely covered by the order dated 17.09.2021
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CWJC . No. 25075 of 2019 (Saurabh Suman
Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) , wherein an
identical issue was considered and adjudicated.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
3/9
The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid
order, the present writ petition may also be
disposed of, in terms of the order dated
17.09.2021.
3. In Saurabh Suman (supra) this
Court has held as follows:
“The petitioner was an
applicant for allotment of a fair price shop
under Bihar Targetted Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016 (in short
‘BTPDS Control Order’). It is specific case
of the petitioner that name of the
petitioner was recommended for
allotment of a fair price shop for Ward No.
28 under Phulwarisharif Nagar Parishad.
Subsequently, his candidature was
cancelled, which was not communicated
to the petitioner. The petitioner learnt
about the cancellation on the basis of
information received by him under the
Right to Information Act. The petitioner’s
candidature, is said to have been cancelled
with reference to Order 11(i) of the BTPDS
Control Order. One Shrawan Kumar, who
has been impleaded as respondent No. 6 is
said to have been recommended for

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
4/9
allotment of the shop in question in place of
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State
of Bihar has informed this Court that till
date requisite licence has not been issued
in favour of respondent No.6 because of the
pendency of this application.
3. Order 11 of BTPDS
Control Order reads as under : -
“11. Disqualifications of
getting a fair price shop license. -
(i) No fair price shop license shall be
granted to more than one member in a
joint family. Father, mother, brother,
brother's wife, husband, wife, son,
son's wife and step brother shall come
in the definition of the family
(ii) A mukhia, a sarpanch, a
panch, a ward member, a member of a
panchayat samiti, a member of a
district board, an MLA, a Member of
Legislative Council, a member of
Parliament, and an elected member of
municipal bodies shall not be eligible
for allotment of a fair price shop during
his tenure as such capacity.
(iii) An owner of a flour
mill and his near relatives shall not be
allotted a fair price shop.
(iv) A minor or a lunatic or

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
5/9
an insolvent shall not be allotted a fair
price shop.
(v) A person finally
convicted by the court under the
Essential Commodities Act,1955 or in
any other criminal case shall not be
allotted a fair price shop.
(vi) A person holding a post
of profit in the Government shall not
be allotted a fair price shop.”
4. Order 11 of the BTPDS
Control Order delineates the
circumstances in which a person shall
stand disqualified of getting a fair price
shop licence. Sub-order (i) of Order 11
requires that no fair price shop licence
shall be granted to more than one
member in a joint family. Father, mother,
brother, brother's wife, husband, wife, son,
son's wife and step brother come within
the definition of ‘the family’ for the
purposes of Order 11(i). This is an
admitted fact that the petitioner’s father
has licence for running a fair price shop
under the BTPDS Control Order. Evidently,
on this ground alone while invoking Order
11(i) of the BTPDS Control Order, the
petitioner has been denied grant of
licence, despite selection and

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
6/9
recommendation in his favour, the
petitioner contends.
5. Despite service of notice,
respondent No. 6 has not entered
appearance.
6. Heard Ms. Chhaya Kirti,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh,
learned A.C. to S.C.-4 for the State of
Bihar.
7. Ms. Chhaya Kirti, learned
counsel for the petitioner has argued that
it is true that the petitioner and
petitioner’s father come within the
meaning of family for the purposes of
Order 11(i) of the BTPDS Control Order.
She has, however, submitted that there is
no jointness in the family inasmuch as
there has been partition in the joint family.
She has further contended that unless
there is a cogent finding that a person is in
jointness with the family members as
mentioned in Order 11(i) of the BTPDS
Control Order, he/she cannot be denied
the privilege of grant of licence on that
ground.
8. On careful reading of Order
11(i) of the BTPDS Control Order, I find
substance in the submission made on

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
7/9
behalf of the petitioner. To deny the
privilege of grant of licence for running a
fair price shop under the BTPDS Control
Order, there must be a finding based on
cogent material that the applicant for such
licence lives in jointness with his family
member/members already having licence
for running a fair price shop. Since there is
no denial of facts, as noted hereinabove,
this application is allowed with a direction
to the licensing authority to reconsider the
question of allotment of fair price shop,
Ward No. 28 of Phulwarisharif Nagar
Parishad. If the licensing authority-cum-
Sub Divisional Officer is of the view that
the petitioner cannot be granted licence
because his father has been granted such
licence under the BTPDS Control Order, he
will have to record a finding based on
cogent materials to the effect that the
petitioner and his father live in jointness.
9. The decision must be taken
within two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
10. This application is
allowed with aforesaid direction.”
4. Having considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties and upon

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
8/9
perusal of the materials available on record, this
Court finds that the controversy involved herein is
fully covered by the judgment rendered by the
Coordinate Bench in Saurabh Suman (supra) .
The cancellation of the petitioner's selection and
licence merely because her gotani is a PDS dealer,
without recording any finding based on cogent
materials that both families constitute a joint
family within the meaning of Clause 11(i) of the
Control Order, 2016, cannot be sustained.
5. Accordingly, the present writ
application is allowed. The impugned orders are
set aside. The matter is remitted to the Licensing
Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh
consideration of the petitioner's entitlement to the
fair price shop licence in question. If the Licensing
Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer is of the view
that the petitioner cannot be granted or permitted
to continue with the licence on the ground that her
gotani has already been granted a licence under
the Bihar Targetted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016, the authority shall first

Patna High Court CWJC No.22063 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
9/9
record a specific finding, based upon cogent and
reliable materials, that the petitioner and the
family of the existing licence-holder are living in
jointness so as to attract the disqualification under
Clause 11(i) of the Control Order, 2016. Mere
existence of the relationship of gotani , without
such finding, shall not constitute a valid ground for
denial or cancellation of the licence.
6. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of two months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this
judgment.
7. The writ application stands allowed
in the aforesaid terms.
8. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall
stands disposed of.


(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.07.2026
Transmission Date