Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Sahani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019WRIC/30430/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Government of UP's denial of subsidy under the Cycle Sahayta Yojana scheme was dismissed. The court held the petitioner violated the scheme by purchasing cycles without the mandatory advertisement and designated sales location procedure.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner for the subsidy claim.

Dinesh Kumar Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30430 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Sahani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Rai,Anshuman Vidhu Chandra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

This petition for writ is preferred to have an appropriate writ, order or direction for the respondents to take delivery of 535 cycles ordered under the scheme of distribution of cycles to the poor labours and also release payment to a tune of Rs.17,65,500/-.

¶7

In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the Government of Uttar Pradesh introduced a scheme in the name of "Cycle Sahayta Yojana" for granting subsidy to the labours in the event of purchase of bicycle. As per the scheme, the District Labour Office was required to assemble all the beneficiaries of the scheme at one place and further to call all the bicycle dealers for advertisement of sale of bicycles to the beneficiaries. The cycle dealers were required to be the persons registered with Commercial Tax Department and should have TIN Numbers. The cycle dealers were required to have a stall at a place where the beneficiaries were to be assembled and on purchase of cycle, a sum of Rs.2500/- was required to be given by the State Government as subsidy to the cost charged.

¶8

As per paragraph 7 of the scheme, the amount of subsidy was required to be paid by the Government to the bicycle dealers after receiving necessary bills and other documents relating to sale of cycles from the stall concerned. It is also relevant to mention that the beneficiaries were at liberty to have cycles of their own choice of whatever cost and out of that only a sum of Rs.2500/- was to be paid as subsidy. The cycle dealers were also supposed to have cycles of different models and marks.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that in view of the scheme aforesaid, an order was given to him to have 535 cycles. Accordingly, he purchased 535 cycles, but due to abandonment of the scheme, the cycles are lying with him and that has caused a loss of Rs.17,65,500/-.

¶10

On going through the entire scheme, we do not find any merit

¶11

in this petition for writ. The provisions of the scheme makes it abundantly clear that at the first instance, the respondents were required to issue advertisement to call different cycle dealers to have a stall to a place identified and further cycles were to be sold on that identified place only. There was no occasion for giving any kind of order for keeping the cycles ready for sale by the petitioner or one specific dealer only.

¶12

In the case in hand, no advertisement was required under the scheme so issued. No place appears to have been identified for sale of the cycle at the stall itself. The petitioner, if have purchased 535 cycles on the basis of some orders given, then it is not in accordance with the scheme under consideration.

¶13

In view of above, the petition for writ is bereft of merits, hence dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.3.2019 SB

¶15

( Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J) ( Govind Mathur,C.J.)

Dinesh Kumar Sahani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Sahani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangat and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Mall Hotel Limited and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Rajesh Kumar Gond Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chetram Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Others