( 2026:JHHC:3422 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4584 of 2012 Fancy Swayam Sahayata Samuh, of village-Kusmanagar, P.O.-Taranagar, District-Pakur, through its Secretary, Bahida Bibi, wife of- Usman Ali, resident of village-Kusmanagar, P.O.-Rahaspur, P.S.-Pakur (M), District- Pakur. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Food grains Public Distribution System & Consumer Matters Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi; 2. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur; 3. Sub- divisional Officer, Pakur; 4. Fakira Swayam Sahayata Samuh, of village-Lakhinarayanpur, P.O.- Taranagar, District-Pakur, through its Secretary, Hasina Bibi, wife of Aabu Sheikh, resident of village- Lakhinarayanpur, Panchayat- Taranagar, P.S.- Pakur (M), District- Pakur, … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the Private Resp. 4 : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate --- 15/06.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- A. In so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the letter No. 246 dated 16.6.2012 issued by Sub-divisional Officer, Pakur (respondent No. 3). whereby he has granted license of dealership of public distribution system to respondent No. 4, and rejected the candidature of the petitioner for license without considering the vital fact that the petitioner’s group is functioning since long (since three years) and is more experienced than respondent No. 4 and is leveled in “second grading” from financial year 2011-12, whereas respondent No. 4 is yet not leveled as “second grading” in the financial year 2011-12 and is less experienced in the area of functioning and is functioning since only 3 months and that its selection is unfair, discriminatory and based on pick & choose; B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to cancel the license of respondent No. 4 and grant the same to the petitioner as the petitioner is more experienced than the respondent No. 4 and is leveled as “second-grading” from financial year 2011-12, whereas respondent No.4 is not so leveled; ( 2026:JHHC:3422 ) 2 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is self-help group namely Fancy Swayam Sahayata of village Kusumanagar which is represented by its secretary who is resident of Kusumanagar in Panchayat Taranagar and had applied for allocation of shop under public distribution system for village Lakhinarayanpur falling in the same panchayat. He submits that no reason has been assigned to the petitioner for not declaring the petitioner successful and on the other hand, the shop under public distribution system has been allocated to the private respondent no. 4 for the village Lakhinarayanpur. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a much better candidate than the private respondent no.4 and has grade -2. 4. The learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities have violated the terms and conditions of the circular dated 06.08.2009 which has been placed on record by filing supplementary affidavit. He submits that the shop was to be allocated only to BPL ladies and Self-Help group who have already achieved Grade-2. The learned counsel has submitted that the allocation of shop is arbitrary and therefore relief, as prayed for, be granted to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has submitted that as per the circular dated 06.08.2009, it only has a proposal that only BPL ladies and self-help group falling under grade-2 would be entitled for the license but the proposal did not culminate in a decision as the decision is contained in paragraph 6 of the circular. 6. He submits that there has been no violation of the circular as alleged by the petitioner. 7. In addition to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the State has also referred to the supplementary counter affidavit at page 15 and has submitted that in panchayat Taranagar, there are two vacant seats, one for Lakhinarayanpur and other was Taranagar. The private respondent no. 4 is a resident of Lakhinarayanpur where the shop has been allocated. He has got all the basic requirements in the ( 2026:JHHC:3422 ) 3 village Lakhinarayanpur. So far as the petitioner is concerned, admittedly the petitioner is not a resident of the village Lakhinarayanpur. The learned counsel submits that since there is no violation of the circular and the petitioner admittedly is not a resident of village Lakhinarayanpur, therefore the writ petition is devoid of any merit. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not located in village Lakhinarayanpur and the place of business of the petitioner has also been shown in Mouza Kusmanagar. Admittedly the allocation of shop in the present case is related to village Lakhinarayanpur. 9. So far as the allegation of violation of the circular dated 06.08.2009 is concerned, paragraph 3 thereof was the proposal for discussion which proposed that the shop will be allocated only to BPL ladies and to self-help group who have achieved grade-2 but the decision is contained in paragraph 6 of the same circular, does not contain any such clause relatable to grade -2. Hence the argument of the petitioner that the shop was to be allocated only to BPL ladies and Self-Help group who have achieved Grade-2, is devoid of any merit. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there has been any violation of the circular dated 06.08.2009 (Annexure-A) placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit. 10. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any serious illegality or violation of the circular dealing with the allocation of public distribution shop in the instant case. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for by the petitioner. 11. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06/02/2026 Uploaded on 22.05.2026 Binit