Ashok Kumar v. The State of Bihar

of this Court in its orders dated 5.4.2004 and 20.3.2007. In fact, it is pointed out by learned counsel that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents, in para-17, it is admitted that on the basis of the number of shops in Darbhanga Sadar being 246 in number, the shops of Scheduled Castes should have been 38 in number but, as a matter of fact, 42 persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes are running the shops which is in excess of that provided by the order of reservation. However, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the decision of this Court dated 20.3.2007 these petitioners also approached the Sub-Divisional Officer with their separate representation on 28.5.2008 but no action is being taken by respondent no.5, the SDO on the said representations. This Court is surprised at the attitude of Government officials who do not consider representation of similarly situated persons in the light of orders passed by this Court but 4 compel each and every such person to approach this Court, crowding unnecessarily the dockets of this Court. It is evident from the admissions made in the counter affidavit, which fact is also asserted by the petitioners in the writ petition, that the action of the authorities in relying upon the policy decision was wholly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise the case of these petitioners is clearly covered by the orders dated 5.4.2004 and 20.3.2007 passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by Taleshwar Jha ‘Rahi’ and others and there can be no reason why the petitioners whose cases are on identical footing were not similarly treated as the petitioners of those cases by respondent no.5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.7.2003 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is quashed. As the matter has already been adjudicated by this Court, a similar direction is issued in the case of these petitioners that they shall be entitled to carry on business and to receive supplies subject to their holding valid licences. It is further made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents to consider and pass fresh orders in accordance with law if they so deem fit in order to implement their policy decision. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)