Dismissed
Sanju Bharti v. State of U.P. and 5 Others
Allahabad HCWRIC/12756/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12756 of 2020…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12756 of 2020…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12756 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sanju Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Shailesh Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P.S. Rathore, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi appears for Gaon Sabha and Shri Shalesh Upadhyay for respondent no.6.
Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to fourth respondent i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh to decide the application of the petitioner dated 16.6.2020 in pursuance of allotment of fair price shop in Village Bohana Tehsil Sadar, Block Jahanaganj, Distt. Azamgarh and for a direction to respondent authorities particularly respondent no.4 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh to issue license for fair price shop in question.
On the matter being taken up on 4.11.2020, the Court had proceeded to pass the following order:-
"The documents annexed with the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner are not legible. He is permitted to bring on record legible copies of the documents.
List on 23.11.2020 in the additional cause list.
In the meantime, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh shall examine the matter at his level and file his personal affidavit in respect of the rival claim made by the petitioner and respondent No.6. He shall examine which of the two resolutions brought on record of the instant case was actually passed and which one is a forged one.
The order shall be communicated to respondent No.4 by learned standing counsel Sri SPS Rathor to ensure its due compliance."
In response to the aforesaid order, personal affidavit has been filed by fourth respondent namely Gaurav Kumar (IAS), the relevant portion of the same is quoted as under:-
".........4. That in compliance of the above noted order passed by this Hon'ble Court the petitioner has constituted a three member team for conducting the enqiry against the proposal passed in open meeting dated 07.11.2019. The Committee has been constituted from three officers namely Rajesh Kumar, ADO Incharge Block Development Officer, Block Jahanaganj; Sri Satish Chandra, Area Rationing Officer, Azamgarh and Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, Tehsildar Sadar, Distt. Azamgarh.
5. That the three members enquiry team has submitted its report after conducting the enquiry on spot in the village in the presence of Village Pradhan, BDC Member and in the presence of the residence villagers o the concerned Village Panchayat. At the time of enquiry the dated 13.11.2020 the complainant Smt. Sanju Bharti and her husband Sri
Deenanath was also present. At the time of complaint of the petitioner and its annexure the photocopy of the Karyavahi Register of open meeting and the names of the members and residents of Gram Sabha has been read over before the villagers and all the residents of the village.
6. That the members of the Gram Sabha has also given their collective statements that in the open meeting dated 07.11.2019 Smt. Savita wife of Sri Devendra Ram has been elected as a fiar price shop dealer through the unanimous motion and no name of any other candidate has been considered, neither the name of Smt. Sanju Bharti wife of Deenanath has been proposed by anybody or being considered by anybody. Aggrieved by the unanimous selection of Savita wife of Devendra Nath made the baseless complaints frequently. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court the report submitted by the three members enquiry team dated 13.11.2020 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.PA-1 to this affidavit.
7. That at the time of enquiry by the three members team the petitioner and her husband Sri Deenanath Bharti has tried to disturb the enquiry and tried to manhandling with the villagers and try to make hindrance for conduct peaceful enquiry.
8. That during the enquiry, it has been found in the original record of Block Development Officer produced by the Block Development Officer the name of Smt. Savita wife of Devendra is mentioned in the photocopy of the Karyavahi Register of Village Panchayat Bohna and in this record there is no evidence has been found in concern of the proposal passed in favour of Smt. Sanju Bharti, the petitioner. The said true copy of the proposal dated 07.11.2019 passed in the open meeting has been already filed as Annexure No.5 with the annexed enquiry report with this personal affidavit.
It is pertinent to mention here that the proposal dated 07.11.2019 filed by the petitioner as annexure no.1 of the writ petition is a forged manufactured document prepared by the petitioner, the act of the petitioner for preparing the forged document is a criminal act and the action will be taken if this Hon'ble Court permits. the forgery has also been confirmed from the joint statements of the maximum members of the Gram Sabha who has singed in the original proposal.
9. That the original Karyavahi register and other important documents in concern of the function of the Village Panchayat has been missed b the Gram Panchayat Adhikari against which he has already registered report in the Police Station Jahanaganj, Distt. Azamgarh which is annexure no.2 of the enquiry report.
10. That at the time of enquiry the Village Pradhan Smt. Lakshmi, BDC Member, Sri Rajendra Village Panchayat Bohna has given their statement in writing that in the open meeting dated 07.11.2019 Smt. Savita Devi, wife of Devendra has been selected as fair price shop dealer, these letters given by the Pradhan and BDC Member are also the anneuxre of the enquiry report, annexure no.3 and 4.
11. That the Village Panchayat Officer, Village Panchayat Bonha has sent the information through his letter dated 07.11.2019 in concern of the selection of Smt. Savita, respondent no.6 as a fair price shop dealer which has been sent to the Block Development Officer, Jahanaganj.
12. That there is no proof or evidence is on record of the office of Block Development Officer in concern of any proposal in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's name was not selected in the meeting also proves by the undated application given by the petitioner in which she has requested to convene the meeting at any other date, this application is also the part of the enquiry report as Annexure No.6.
13. That further petitioner given an application on 27.2.2020 in which she has mentioned that the proposal has been passed in her favour and there is serious contradiction between the undated application and application dated 27.2.2020 given by the petitioner.
14. That under the compliance of the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above noted writ petition the enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry, this fact is crystal clear that in the open meeting dated 07.11.2019 Smt. Savita wife of Devendra, respondent no.6 has been selected as fair price shop dealer in the proposal. The compliant submitted by Smt. Sanju Bharti, petitioner and the photocopy of the said proposal is a false forged and baseless document.
15. That the petitioner has also filed the present writ petition on the basis of forged document and false complaint with the concealment of fact and through a misconceived petition. The act of the petitioner is liable to be taken a serious action against her and the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with a heavy cost in the interest of justice......"
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the Court had asked Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned vide order dated 4.11.2020 to examine the matter at his level and file his personal affidavit after examining which of the two resolutions brought on record was actually passed and which one is a forged. In response thereof personal affidavit has been filed indicating the aforesaid facts. After examining the same there is hardly any scope to proceed further in the matter.
Once the Court has declined to interfere in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not inclined to press the present writ petition.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 14.12.2020 SP/
Sanju Bharti
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court