Patna High Court
Md Shakir Raza@ Md.Sakir Raza vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.424 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3817 of 2023
======================================================
Md Shakir Raza@ Md.Sakir Raza Son of Md. Jamiluddin Resident of Village
Jiyanganj, P.S. Kasba, District Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
4. The District Magistrate, Purnea.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea.
6. The District Supply Officer, Block - Kasba, Purnea.
7. The Block Supply Officer, Block - Kasba, Purnea.
8. Md. Rahmat Ali, Son of Abdus Samad Ansari, resident of Matkopa
Jiyanganj, Gurhi, Distt. Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Avnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, A.A.G.-5
Mr. Alok Ranjan, A.C. to A.A.G.-5
For the Resp. No. 8 : Mr. Md. Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 19-02-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Md.
Shakir Raza @ Md. Sakir Raza, challenging the order dated
24.03.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.
3817 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by Md. Rahmat
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
2/14
Ali, who is Respondent No. 8 in this appeal, was allowed and
the authorities were directed to issue a license in his favour.
2. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to
take note of that in terms with the order dated 08.01.2026, a
supplementary affidavit has been filed stating therein that in
compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge, license
has already been issued in favour of Respondent No. 8, Md.
Rahmat Ali. The relevant paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, are
extracted herein below:-
“4. That it is relevant to submits that Sub
Divisional Officer Sadar Purnea issued a letter
vide letter no. 980 dated 16.4.2025 in view of
C.W.J.C. No. 3817 of 2023 passed by Hon’ble High
Court Patna dated 27.3.2025 in favour of
Respondent no. 8 S.D.O. Sadar Purnea has issued
a license for public Distribution system as per the
order of Hon’ble High Court.
5. That learned SDO Sadar Purnea
respondent further issued a license No. 01/2025
and chalan No. 10910/2025 for 2.6.2025 in favour
of Respondent no.8.
6. That thereafter the legal metrology
officer namely Jay Kumar Pandey Inspector has
given measures center machine Respondent no. 8.
7. That it is stated and submitted before
this Hon’ble court that the licensing authority Sub
Divisional Officer Sadar Purnea has fully complied
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
3/14the order of Hon’ble Single Judge passed by
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Abhishekh Reddy in
C.W.J.C. No. 3817/2023.
8. That therefore once order has been
complied by the competent authority nothing
remains in the LPA i.e. LPA no. 424/2025 become
infructuous.”
3. The Respondent No. 8, the writ petitioner
approached this Court seeking the following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)
thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 13.12.2022 as contained in Memo No.
02 dated 02.01.2023 passed by the respondent
Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Supply
Revision No. 60/2022 (Md. Skahir Raza vs. the
State of Bihar & ors.) whereby the said respondent
while allowing the revision filed by the respondent
no. 8 has reversed the order dated 15.03.2022
passed by the respondent no. 4 in Supply Appeal
Case No. 188/2019 thereby directing the competent
authority to select the respondent no. 8 as PDS
dealer for Block- Kasba, Gram Panchayat Gurhi,
Distt.-Purnea.
(ii) For consequently issuance of
appropriate writ(s) thereby directing the
respondents concerned to grant the petitioner PDS
dealer license for Gram Panchayat, Gurhi, Block
Kasba, Distt.-Purnea as he fulfills all the requisite
eligibility for the same which is required under
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
4/14Clause 9 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016.
(iii) For grant of any other relief (s)
which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
4. An advertisement was published by the
Collectorate, Purnea, for grant of a PDS license in Gram
Panchayat Gurhi, Block Kasba, in the district of Purnea, for
general category candidates. However, no candidate of the
general category applied for the same, the writ petitioner and
Respondent No. 8 in the writ petition (who is now the appellant
in the present Letters Patent Appeal), both belonging to the
E.B.C. category, applied for the said license and their cases were
duly considered.
5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he passed the
Fauquania examination in the year 2009 with first division from
the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna, and also
passed the Maulvi examination in the year 2012 with second
division from the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna.
Further, on 18.02.2014, he completed a one-year Advance
Diploma in Computer Application course from Suchna
Technosis Sansthan Private Ltd.
6. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 8 to the
writ petition, though applied for the PDS license, but he did not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
5/14
possess any certificate of a computer diploma course and had no
knowledge of computers, which is a basic requirement under
Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016, for getting preference in the grant of a
PDS license.
7. On 12.06.2017, the writ petitioner submitted his
application for the PDS license along with all relevant
certificates, including the certificate of computer knowledge. On
27.07.2017, the Block Supply Officer, Kasba, submitted an
enquiry report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea,
stating that the petitioner possessed computer knowledge. A
comparative chart was also prepared with regard to the
eligibility criteria, which indicated that the writ petitioner had
computer knowledge and the relevant certificate was made
available, whereas such certificate was missing in the case of
Respondent No. 8.
8. Despite the fact that Respondent No. 8 to the writ
petition did not possess the computer certificate and the
petitioner fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria for the PDS
license, Respondent No. 8 was selected for the PDS license for
Gurhi Gram Panchayat.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
6/14
challenged the decision before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 564 of
2019. This Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal
before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the writ petitioner
preferred Supply Appeal No. 188 of 2019, and after hearing
both the parties, the Appellate Authority cancelled the PDS
license granted in favour of Respondent No. 8 and directed the
authorities to select the writ petitioner and grant the license in
his favour.
10. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority,
Respondent No. 8 filed Supply Revision No. 60 of 2022 before
the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea. The Revisional Authority
reversed the order mainly on the ground that Respondent No. 8
had submitted the certificate of computer knowledge on
30.07.2018, i.e., before the last date for submission of
objections.
11. It was contended by the writ petitioner that
possession of a computer knowledge certificate is a pre-requisite
under Rule 9(v) of the Control Order, 2016, and therefore, any
interference with the Appellate Authority’s order by the
Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction was neither proper nor justified. It was further
contended that the genuineness of the certificate produced by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
7/14
Respondent No. 8 is doubtful. The writ petitioner also filed a
supplementary affidavit annexing the application format.
12. Respondent No. 8, who is the appellant in this
Letters Patent Appeal, filed his counter affidavit upon notice and
stated that at the time of consideration of the applications, both
the writ petitioner and Respondent No. 8 possessed computer
qualifications and had filed documents to that effect. It was
further stated that Respondent No. 8 had obtained higher marks
in the Maulvi examination and, therefore, the order passed by
the Revisional Authority was justified.
13. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties and considering the pleadings,
was pleased to observe as follows:-
“6. In order to resolve the issue involved
in the present writ petition, this Court has called
for the original file pertaining the selection of the
respondent No. 8 and perused the applications
made by both the petitioner as well as the
respondent No. 8. A perusal of the application
made by the petitioner reveals that he was having
the requisite qualifications and in his application.
As against column No. 1(छ) as against the
“कंपयूटर जान” (computer knowledge), the petitioner
has stated “yes” and enclosed the requisite
certificates. The check list of the petitioner also
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
8/14reveals that as on the date of his application he
was having the computer knowledge and had
enclosed the certificates. However, in the
application made by the respondent No. 8 as
against the column No. 1(छ) i.e., “कंपयूटर जान”,
the respondent No. 8 has not filled up the column
and left it blank. Though the learned counsel for
the respondent No. 8 has relied on the check list
prepared at the time of application to contend that
the respondent No. 8 was having the computer
knowledge, a perusal of the check list reveals that
there is interpolation in the column No. 6 at
“कंपयूटर का जान है या नहीं” initially the word “Yes”
has been struck off and “No” has been written.
Though the learned counsel has stated that
somebody has tried to manipulate his check list. A
perusal of the same reveals that the ink which has
been used is different from the rest of the page.
Therefore, the respondent No. 8 cannot take
advantage of the same as in the application made
by the respondent No. 8 as against the computer
knowledge he has left it blank. Further, the
respondent No. 8 has relied on another check list
purported to have been made on 31.05.2017 but
perusal of the same reveals that ink on the said
check list is different from the one prepared by the
authorities earlier when compared to the other
documents prepared on the very same day, the ink
is new and in a different hand writing therefore, the
same also cannot be take into consideration.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
9/14
7. Having regard to the above mentioned
facts and circumstances, the reasons given by the
Divisional Commissioner in setting aside the order
of the appellate authority and restoring the license
of the respondent No. 8 cannot be countenanced in
view of the provisions of the (Control) Order, 2016,
more specifically Rule 9(v) which reads as under;
“9. The following facts shall
be considered in allotting a fair price
shop by the Selection Committee.
(i) ….
(ii) ….
(iii) ….
(iv) ….
(v) The applicant of a fair
price shop’s license must be matric
pass and an adult;
Provided that the applicant
having computer knowledge shall be
given priority. In case of equality in
computer knowledge, the applicant
having highest qualification and in
case of equality in highest
qualification also the applicant of
older age shall be given priority.”
8. The Rule is very clear that a person
who has passed a matriculation and having
computer knowledge should be preferred and in
case of a person having a higher qualification, the
person having a higher qualification should be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
10/14
selected and in case the educational qualifications
are same then the age should be taken into
consideration. In this particular case, both the
petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 are having
equal qualification but insofar as the respondent
No. 8 is concerned, he does not have the requisite
computer knowledge as on the date of his filing the
application. The application made by the petitioner
reveals that as against column 1(छ) he has left
blank and does not reveal that he has enclosed the
copy of the computer certificate obtained by him.
9. Having regard to above mentioned
facts and circumstances of the case, the order
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea
dated 13.12.2022 is set aside and the order passed
by the appellate authority in Supply Appeal No.
188/2019 dated 15.03.2022 is restored. The
authorities are directed to issue the license in
favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The original
file which produced by the government pleader is
being returned.”
14. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
learned Single Judge should not have entered into the disputed
question of fact, coming to the conclusion that the checklist
purported to have been made on 31.05.2017 was different from
the one prepared by the authorities earlier. The learned Single
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
11/14
Judge completely ignored the fact that the appellant had
submitted the certificate of computer knowledge prior to the
cut-off date for filing objections.
15. It was further argued that the District-Level
Selection Committee, after due consideration of the educational
qualifications as well as the certificate of computer knowledge
of the appellant, had made a recommendation for grant of PDS
license in favor of the appellant. Since the appellant has better
educational qualifications than the writ petitioner, the impugned
order suffers from perversity and is liable to be set aside.
16. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8,
the writ petitioner, supported the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
17. Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 reads as follows:
“9(v) The applicant of a fair price shop’s
license must be matric pass and an adult;
Provided that the applicant having
computer knowledge shall be given priority. In
case of equality in computer knowledge, the
applicant having highest qualification and in case
of equality in highest qualification also the
applicant of older age shall be given priority.”
18. On a plain reading of the afore noted provision, it
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
12/14
appears that the minimum qualification eligibility criteria
require that the applicant should be a matriculate and an adult.
However, in cases where number of applicants have applied for
a license of a fair price shop, priority is to be given to the
applicant possessing computer knowledge. If all applicants have
equal computer knowledge, then the applicant with the highest
educational qualification is to be given preference. In case of
equality in the highest qualification, the applicant who is older
in age is to be given priority.
19. The application was invited in the year 2017, and
both the writ petitioner and Respondent No. 8, who is the
appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal, applied for the same. In
the application filed by the writ petitioner, in the prescribed
column relating to computer knowledge, he not only marked
“Yes” but also enclosed the requisite certificate. As far as the
appellant is concerned, he left the said column blank.
20. The learned Single Judge took into account the
checklist, which revealed that in column number 6, initially the
word “Yes” had been struck off and written “No”. Though it is
required that, at the time of filing the application, the applicant
must possess computer knowledge and priority is to be given
accordingly, the diploma certificate produced by the appellant
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
13/14
indicates that his session for diploma course was during 2017-
18, but the certificate was issued on 08.04.2017. This appears to
be a prima facie fake certificate, as issuance of a certificate in
April 2017, before the completion of the diploma session,
cannot be accepted.
21. It, thus, prima facie appears that in the application
filed by the appellant for the fair price shop, he rightly left the
column regarding computer knowledge blank but subsequently
produced the diploma completion certificate in the year 2018.
As on the date of application, both the writ petitioner and
Respondent No. 8 (the appellant) possessed matriculation
qualifications. However, the writ petitioner also had computer
knowledge and was therefore entitled to be given priority.
22. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in allowing the
prayer made in the writ petition and directing the authorities
concerned to issue the license in favor of the writ petitioner. We
do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
23. In an intra-court appeal, unless there is perversity,
palpable unreasonableness, or inconsistency with any position
of law, the order should not be disturbed, as the appellate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.424 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
14/14
jurisdiction under a Letters Patent Appeal is corrective in nature.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.02.2026 Transmission Date
