IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.7094 of 2019 ----- Mohammad Isak, S/o Mohammad Khalil, Village & P.O. Birda, P.S. Kara, District Khunti. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The Block Supply Officer, Khunti. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Khunti. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti. 5. The District Supply Officer, Khunti. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : None ----- Order No.07 Date: 02.01.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead District Supply Officer, Khunti as respondent no.5 2. Necessary insertion in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the counsel for the petitioner in course of the day. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon concerned respondents to restore/renew the petitioner’s Licence No.KA 3 of 1987 for distribution of kerosene oil. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the licensee under Licence No.KA 3 of 1987 for distribution of kerosene oil. During the inspection carried out by the Additional District Supply Officer (ADSO), Khunti on 10th May, 1990, the petitioner and two other licensees were allegedly found selling kerosene oil above the rate fixed by the Government and to that effect, a first information report being Karra P.S. Case No.34 of 1990 was registered under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against them. Subsequently, vide order dated 28th January, 1991 passed by the Special Judge, Ranchi, the petitioner was discharged from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, he made an application before the respondent no.3 on 9th April, 2007 followed by reminders dated 20th December, 2007, 10th September, 2009 and 14th February, 2011 for restoration/renewal of the said licence, however, till date the competent authority has not passed any order in this regard, which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 5. No one appears on behalf of the State. 6. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, however, on perusal of the same, it appears that except exchange of letters among the officers, no decision has yet been taken by the competent authority in this regard. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering that no decision has yet been taken by the competent authority in this regard, respondent no.5 is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the petitioner’s claim of restoration/renewal of the aforesaid licence within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/ -2- W.P.(C) No.7094 of 2019