Disqualification under PDS Control Order requires cogent findings of jointness, not merely existence of family relationship.

The petitioner, Priyanka Bharti, was appointed as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Panchayat-Malahipatti Uttari, Darbhanga. Her license (No. 03/2018) was subsequently cancelled by the District Selection Committee on June 9, 2018, and by the Sub-Divisional Officer on July 14, 2018.

The cancellation was based on the ground that her ‘Gotani’ (sister-in-law/husband’s brother’s wife) was already an existing PDS dealer.

The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner, Darbhanga, who dismissed the appeal on August 21, 2018, as not maintainable.

1. Whether the mere relationship of ‘Gotani’ with an existing licensee constitutes a valid ground for disqualification under the definition of "family" in the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the licensing authority is required to record a specific finding of "jointness" of the family before cancelling a license under Clause 11(i) of the Control Order.

The court primarily applied Clause 11(i) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which prohibits granting more than one fair price shop license to members of a "joint family," defining family as father, mother, brother, brother’s wife, husband, wife, son, son’s wife, and step-brother.

The court relied on the precedent set in Saurabh Suman v. The State of Bihar Ors (CWJC No. 25075 of 2019), which established that to deny a license under Clause 11(i), there must be a factual finding based on cogent material that the applicant lives in "jointness" with the existing licensee.

The Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra (unsettled) and was squarely covered by the Saurabh Suman case.

The Court reasoned that Clause 11(i) specifically targets "joint families." Therefore, a license cannot be cancelled simply because a relative (such as a Gotani) holds a license unless there is a specific, evidence-based finding that the two families constitute a single joint unit.

In the present case, the authorities cancelled the license based solely on the relationship without conducting an inquiry or recording a finding regarding whether the petitioner lived in jointness with her Gotani.

The Court held that the mere existence of the relationship, absent proof of a joint household, does not attract the disqualification criteria.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders of the District Selection Committee, the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the Commissioner. The matter was remitted to the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh consideration within two months.