Dismissed

Smt. Vinita v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2018WRIC/20566/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking allotment of a fair price shop. Holding that the petitioner's substantial delay and failure to challenge the underlying rejection order barred relief, the court ruled that the right to a shop is subservient to public interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no allotment of the fair price shop was granted.

Smt. Vinita Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20566 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Vinita Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Mani Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The licence of the erstwhile fair price shop dealer of village panchayat Tarsi, DistrictMathura was cancelled. The resolution was purportedly passed by the village panchayat recommending the name of the petitioner in place of the erstwhile fair price shop dealer. Apparently, the respondent authorities did not act on the said resolution. The petitioner was not issued an appointment letter and the petitioner was not appointed as the fair price shop dealer.

¶6

Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this court by instituting Writ-C No.26085 of 2016, Smt. Vinita Vs. State of U.P. and others. The writ petition was finally disposed of by judgement and order dated 30.5.2016. The operative portion of the judgement of this Court is extracted hereunder:

¶7

"Considering the facts and circumstances, writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation ventilating her grievances before the respondent no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District - Mathura annexing therewith all relevant documents in support of her claim and a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today, with the direction to the authority to decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of one month from the date of making of the representation, after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned."

¶8

In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 30.5.2016, the respondent No.3

¶9

passed an order on 30.7.2016 deciding the matter on merits. The order dated 30.7.2016 rejects the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶10

The relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is extracted hereunder:

¶11

"to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot the fair price shop to the petitioner who is selected in proposal dated 13.5.2015 passed by the Gaon Sabha in open meeting."

¶12

It is noteworthy that the order dated 30.7.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner has not been challenged. The petitioner has approached this Court after considerable delay. Laches and lack of diligence on part of the petitioner are writ large on the face of record. There is no satisfactory explanation of the aforesaid delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.& M. Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others , reported at (2005) 3 SCC 91 considering the consequences of delay and lack of diligence on part of the litigant held thus:

¶13

"34.There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb the third-party interest created on account of delay. Even otherwise also why should the Court come to the rescue of a person who is not vigilant of his rights?"

¶14

In the instant case, the delay is fatal to the cause of the petitioner. The fair price shop serves the most noble purpose of providing the entitlements under the National Food Security Act and other beneficial schemes to

¶15

the weakest sections of the society. The right of the applicant for grant of fair price shop dealership is not above public interest. It is subservient to public interest. In case delay of this nature is condoned, it will cause adhocism and uncertainty in the system of public distribution. In this view of the matter, the delay is not liable to be condoned. Moreover, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has not been challenged till date. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner has thus attained finality.

¶16

The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Ashish Tripathi

Smt. Vinita v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vinita 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Archana and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ashiya@Shivani and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Simran Arya @ Shaista and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Meera Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others