Disposed

Atul Kumar Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020WRIC/10980/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged a fair price shop dealer was misappropriating subsidized foodgrains with police protection due to her husband being Gram Pradhan, and that complaints were ignored. The court held no effective consumer remedy existed under the Control Order and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct an inquiry, hear parties, and decide within fifteen days, with Commissioner-level monitor

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with directions to SDO, Deoband to inquire into complaints, hear parties and decide within fifteen days, monitored by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies.

Atul Kumar Maurya and 2 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10980 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Maurya And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that they have made several complaints, copy of one such complaint addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur is enclosed as Annexure-6 against the illegal acts of the respondent no. 6, who is running a fair price shop at village Makabara Deoband Dehat, District Saharanpur. It is mentioned in the complaint that her husband- Bablu Kumar is the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and in the light of this fact, there is undue protection available to the fair price shop dealer namely, Smt. Kabita and she is indulging in large scale burglary and misappropriation of subsidized foodgrains which are meant to be distributed through the machinery of fair price shop. It is further submitted that some of the villagers got the F.I.R. registered under the provisions of Sections 420, 209 and 120-B registered against the respondent no. 6 and her husband- Bablu Kumar, but even police has failed to take any action on such complaint. It is submitted that public of the village Makabara Deoband is facing the consequences of irregularities, but authorities are sleeping over the matter. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this High Court in case of Summer Bahadur Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others as reported in 2016 (9) ADJ 79, but it has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that petitioner has no locus to file this writ petition and if he is aggrieved, he should resort to filing of public interest litigation. It is submitted that since petitioner has no locus to file this writ petition and he has an alternate remedy available under the provisions of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, therefore, this writ petition be dismissed.

¶8

Though prima facie arguments advanced by learned

¶9

Government Advocate appears to be attractive, but at the same time fact is that no remedy has been provided under the Control Order for an aggrieved consumer except knocking the doors of the authorities. It is apparent that petitioners have already approached the authorities as is evident from the documents enclosed along with the writ petition, but the authorities are sleeping over such representation and have not caused any inquiry to be conducted in the matter.

¶10

In the light of on going Covid-19 pandemic, distribution of foodgrains from the fair price shop has attained a new humanitarian dimensions and in case, there is resort to any malpractices as alleged in the complaints, then such malpractices have direct bearing on the "Right to Life" as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶11

In view of such facts, this Court is of the opinion that authorities are bound to conduct an inquiry, take a decision on the complaints after affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainants and decide the complaints on the basis of factual materials placed before the authorities. It is made clear that for this purpose, petitioners shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Deoband, District Saharanpur on 15.07.2020 along with a computer downloaded copy from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad of the order passed today along with a complete set of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10980 of 2020 and if petitioners approach the Sub-Divisional Officer i.e., respondent no. 5 on such date, then the Sub-Divisional Officer shall cause an inquiry and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 6 against whom allegations have been made, take a decision within fifteen days thereafter and shall communicate such decision to all the concerned parties. It is further directed that a copy of the impugned order be also supplied to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Uttar Pradesh and Commissioner shall through the Office of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur monitor the progress of the action taken in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Vikram/-

Atul Kumar Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Maurya and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh and Another Vs Rajendri and 4 Others

Madanpal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishnamohan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Mohammad Kadir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others