Authorities must dispose of pending representations regarding PDS license eligibility and alleged concealment of facts within a stipulated timeframe.

The petitioner, an educated unemployed individual, applied for the allotment of a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop. The respondent authorities, however, granted the PDS dealership (License No. 03/2018) to Respondent No. 7, Suresh Kumar

The petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 7 obtained the license by concealing the fact that his wife is a Government Teacher, which purportedly violates Bihar's food and consumer protection regulations

The petitioner submitted representations to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikarhana, on 08.09.2018, and the District Magistrate, East Champaran, on 18.09.2018, challenging the allotment

Seeking the cancellation of the license and a decision on his pending representations, the petitioner filed this writ petition

1. Whether Respondent No. 7’s PDS license is liable for cancellation due to the alleged concealment of his spouse's employment status in violation of the Food and Consumer Protection Act

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to decide on the petitioner's long-pending representations regarding the legality of the PDS allotment

The court's intervention was grounded in the principles of administrative law and the duty of public authorities to consider and dispose of statutory or administrative representations within a reasonable timeframe.

It specifically referenced the regulatory framework governing the Public Distribution System under the Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, and the Food and Consumer Protection Act of the Government of India

The court did not adjudicate the case on its merits or verify the allegations of fraud/misrepresentation against Respondent No. 7

The court reasoned that since the matter remained unaddressed by the executive authorities for several years, the most appropriate remedy was to compel the authorities to perform their administrative duty

By setting a timeline for the disposal of these representations, the court ensured that the facts regarding the eligibility of Respondent No. 7 would be scrutinized by the appropriate departmental heads

It issued a directive to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer) to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representations, if still pending, within three months from the date of receipt of the order. All interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of