A petitioner alleging private rivalry without personal-right infringement lacks standing to challenge a PDS licence under Article 226.

Jyoti Kumari, Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Paghari, challenged the selection of respondent no. 8 for a fair-price-shop licence on compassionate grounds following his father’s death.

She alleged that the deceased licensee’s date of birth had been misstated and that the school admission register showed he was over 58 when he died, making respondent no. 8 ineligible.

Respondent no. 8 relied on a Madhyama certificate showing a different date of birth and argued, among other things, that the petitioner lacked locus and that an FIR against him did not disqualify him absent conviction.

The State also contended that a statutory remedy was available under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The Court noted a private dispute between the petitioner’s husband and respondent no. 8, including an FIR lodged by the husband against respondent no. 8.

Whether the petitioner had established an infringement of her own legal right or a violation of the principles of natural justice sufficient to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with respondent no. 8’s selection and grant of a fair-price-shop licence.

The Court considered its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and stated that, in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner had to demonstrate an infringement of her own legal right or a violation of the principles of natural justice to obtain relief.

The Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, provided the context for the challenged licence; however, the Court did not interpret a specific provision of that Order or rely on any cited precedent in deciding the petition.

The Court treated the petition as a challenge to respondent no. 8’s eligibility for compassionate appointment but noted the subsisting dispute between the petitioner’s husband and respondent no. 8, including the husband’s FIR against respondent no. 8.

In that context, it considered the proceeding to have been brought against the backdrop of the private dispute.

The petitioner had not shown that her own legal right was infringed or that the principles of natural justice were violated; nor was the proceeding a public-interest litigation.

The Court therefore declined to interfere, without resolving the competing evidence about the deceased licensee’s date of birth or determining respondent no. 8’s eligibility on the merits.

Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.