Disposed

Sonu Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023WRIC/1224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of to direct the Gram Sabha to conduct a fresh meeting for allotting a fair price shop within three weeks, as the original meeting procedure was defective. The petitioner, claiming EWS category eligibility, was granted liberty to participate in the new meeting.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conduct a fresh meeting of the Gram Sabha within three weeks to allot the fair price shop with due process; petitioner liberty to participate.

Sonu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1224 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sonu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvendra Singh,Shailendra Nigam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Arvendra Singh and Sri Shailendra Nigam, learned counsels for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents.

¶4

Petitioner has claimed herself to be a candidate under E.W.S. category who has participated in the meeting conducted by Gram Sabha for allotment of fair price shop of village concerned, wherein respondent No.7 was allotted the shop and proposal was sent for approval, however, considering the objections that due process was not followed, S.D.M. Bara, Prayagraj cancelled the proposal on basis of a report submitted by Tehsil Level Committee, with a direction for fresh meeting.

¶5

Petitioner being aggrieved by said order that her right was not considered and order ought to have been rejected qua to proposal of respondent No.7 only and to allot the shop to petitioner filed an appeal under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

¶6

The Appellate Authority considered the case at length and came to conclusion that procedure adopted by Gram Sabha was defective and consequently adopted proposal of appointment of respondent No.7 was rightly cancelled, a further direction was issued for conducting a fresh meeting in accordance with law.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in such circumstances, there was no need to conduct fresh meeting that claim of petitioner could be considered being duly eligible and

¶8

who has participated in meeting for allotment of license of fair price shop. Learned counsel further submits that there is a provision that a defective resolution can be reviewed by Gram Sabha.

¶9

In the present case, arguments of petitioner were substantially accepted by Appellate Authority and found cancellation of allotment of fair price shop to respondent No.7 to be correct with further finding that the procedure adopted for conducting the meeting by Gram Sabha was not proper as the Quoram was not completed as well as certain irregularities were also committed and by impugned order, a further direction was passed to take fresh proposal in accordance with procedure established.

¶10

Considering that proposal for allotment of fair price shop being defective, I do not find any merit in argument of learned counsel for petitioner that he being eligible candidate, be allotted the fair price shop. If the procedure adopted by Gram Sabha itself was defective, it cannot adopt any proposal and such proposal cannot be renewed. The appellate Court has rightly set aside the meetings of Gram Sabha and further rightly directed to Gram Sabha to conduct a fresh meeting in accordance with law and petitioner has liberty to participate in it.

¶11

Therefore, without interfering with impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction for conducting a fresh meeting of concerned Gram Sabha, if still not conducted for allotment of fair price shop within a period of three weeks from today and due process shall be adopted. The petitioner is at liberty to participate in said meeting.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 P. Pandey

¶13

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Star Landcraft Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Satnam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuruddh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others