Subsequent eligibility requirements cannot retrospectively govern pending applications for compassionate PDS licences.

The petitioner’s husband, Late Ramesh Kumar, was a licensed PDS dealer holding Licence No. 62/2007. He died on 5 December 2014 while collecting foodgrains allotted to the PDS shop.

The petitioner, his widow, applied on 9 February 2015 for grant of the PDS licence on compassionate grounds. At the time of her application, matriculation was allegedly not a mandatory qualification for such grant. Subsequently, the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 introduced the requirement that an applicant be matriculation-pass.

By Memo No. 503 dated 7 August 2018, the District Selection Committee rejected the petitioner’s application solely because she was not matriculation-pass. The petitioner claimed that she learnt of the rejection only through information obtained under the Right to Information Act in 2022 and challenged the order before the High Court.

Whether the matriculation requirement under Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 could be applied to the petitioner’s application filed in 2015 and pending when the 2016 Control Order came into force.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the basis of the subsequently introduced matriculation requirement was legally sustainable.

The Court applied the presumption that, unless expressly provided otherwise, a statutory provision operates prospectively and not retrospectively; therefore, a subsequent amendment introducing a new eligibility condition cannot ordinarily govern an application already filed and pending under the earlier regime.

Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 requires an applicant for a fair-price shop licence to be an adult and matriculation-pass.

The Court relied on Mohan Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 3809 of 2011, which held that amended PDS provisions could not be applied to applications pending before the amendment, and on Most. Shashi Gupta v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2013 (2) PLJR 899, which reaffirmed that such amendments operate prospectively.

The petitioner’s application was submitted on 9 February 2015, before the 2016 Control Order introduced matriculation as an eligibility requirement. The respondents did not dispute that the requirement was absent when the application was filed.

Since the application was already pending, the authorities were required to assess it under the rules applicable on the date of submission rather than apply the later eligibility condition retrospectively.

Consistent with the precedents concerning pending applications under amended PDS rules, the Court held that rejection solely for want of matriculation under Rule 9(v) of the 2016 Control Order was unsustainable.

The competent authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for grant of a PDS licence on compassionate grounds in accordance with the rules applicable on 9 February 2015, and to pass a reasoned order within two months of receiving or being furnished a copy of the judgment.