Dismissed

Shyam Sunder v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2018WRIC/13305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of India referred to Poonam vs. State of U.P. regarding the rights of a subsequent fair price shop holder. It held that subsequent allottees are temporary stop-gap arrangements without independent rights against the reinstatement of the original allottee. The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for lack of merits.

Shyam Sunder Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13305 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Ashok Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The petitioner is a subsequent allottee of fair price shop of village Aahar T ehsil Baberu district Banda. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.4.2018 passed by respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Baberu, district Banda, reinstating the shop of respondent No. 5.

¶7

Certain subsequent developments have not been brought on the record by the petitioner.

¶8

Shri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 informs that subsequent to the order dated 4.4.2018, a fresh charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. The matter still engages the attention of the authorities below.

¶9

The subsequent allottee has no right to challenge the reinstatement of the original fair price shop allottee. He was appointed as only a stop gap arrangement, till such time, the case of the respondent No. 5 was decided on merits. The right of the subsequent allottee has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Poonam vs. State of U.P. and others; 2016 (2) SCC 779. Paragraph 50 of the judgment reads as under:-

¶10

"50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before the High Court was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right. It is extremely difficult to hold that

¶11

she has an independent legal right. It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled. He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the third party."

¶12

In view of the facts, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.4.2018

¶14

Sumaira

Shyam Sunder v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Preeti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Garima Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Qaynat Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Manju and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others