Allowed

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2023WRIC/2160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found that a writ judgment allowing a temporary fair price shop dealer was passed on a wrong premise as the court below did not know of an earlier order granting temporary tenure. Consequently, the original judgment was recalled, and a review application was allowed while both writ petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review application was allowed; the order of 10.11.2017 was recalled; Writ-C No. 56025 of 2014 was dismissed; Civil Misc. Application No. 12 of 2022 was rejected; Writ-C No. 2160 of 2018 was dismi

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2160 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narsingh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Dharam Deo Chauhan,Shreeprakash Singh

¶4

AND

¶5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56025 of 2014

¶6

Petitioner :- Pancha Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreeprakash Singh,Smt. Archana Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nar Singh Pandey

¶7

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶8

Civil Misc. Recall Application No.398797 of 2017 (In Writ-C No.56025 of 2014): Civil Misc. Application No.12 of 2022 (In Writ-C No.2160 of 2018) :

¶9

Heard Sri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5. Sri Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 has also made his submissions.

¶10

Challenging the order dated 16.2.2013 which was affirmed by the appellate order dated 23.9.2014 with regard to the petitioner, Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 was filed. This writ petition was allowed on 10.11.2017 on the basis of the fact that the orders were passed simply because earlier a First

¶11

Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 19.12.2012 and no inquiry had taken place. In pursuance thereof, an order dated 13.12.2017 was passed by which Panch Kumari, the petitioner in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 was given the licence. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018, Shiv Kumar had filed Writ-C No.2160 of 2018. Before the writ Court, the petitioner in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 argued that in fact the petitioner in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 was not running the fair price shop on the basis of any licence which was granted on 22.12.2011 but she was running the fair price shop on the basis of the order dated 5.6.2012 and that order was only to the effect that she had the right to run the fair price shop till a regularly selected fair price shop dealer was appointed.

¶12

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in Shiv Kumar's case that Shiv Kumar was selected vide order dated 1.11.2013 after a due selection process was undergone. In Writ-C No.2160 of 2018, the effect and operation of the order dated 13.12.2017 was stayed on 16.1.2018. Panch Kumari had filed a counter affidavit in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 for the vacation of the order dated 16.1.2018. In the counter affidavit it has nowhere been denied that the order initially passed in favour of Panch Kumari had been recalled and that Panch Kumari was only a temporary fair price shop dealer in pursuance of the order dated 5.6.2012.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 has argued that when there was an order by which the

¶14

writ petition was allowed on 10.11.2017, then definitely the order dated 16.1.2018 in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 could not have been passed. However, he could not deny the fact that Panch Kumari was only a temporary fair price shop dealer in pursuance of the order dated 5.6.2012.

¶15

Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the order dated 10.11.2017 was passed because the Court was not made aware of the order dated 5.6.2012. Had the Court known about the order dated 5.6.2012, then definitely the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 would not have been passed.

¶16

From the record, the Court further finds that for the reviewing of the order dated 10.11.2017, Shiv Kumar, the petitioner in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 has also filed a Recall/Review Application.

¶17

Under such circumstances, since the order dated 5.6.2012 was not considered in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014, the Court is of the view that the judgment and order dated 10.11.2017 passed in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 was passed on a wrong premise. The order dated 10.11.2017 is thus recalled and the Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 stands dismissed.

¶18

Further the Court is of the view that there is no ground made out for the recalling of the order dated 16.1.2018 passed in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 as Sri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 has stated that the petitioner had surrendered his licence and a fresh proceeding was undergone for the selection of a new

¶19

fair price shop dealer and thereafter in fact a fresh dealer by the name of Ram Kumar son of Shiv Ram Maurya had been appointed. I am thus of the view that Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 has also become infructuous. If the petitioner in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 is aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2020 by which Ram Kumar has been selected, she may take recourse to such legal action as might be available to her.

¶20

Under such circumstances, for the reasons stated above, the review application filed in Writ-C No.56025 of 2014 stands allowed. The order dated 10.11.2017 is recalled. Writ-C No.56025 of 2014, accordingly, stands dismissed. Civil Misc. Application No.12 of 2022 is rejected. Writ-C No.2160 of 2018 is also dismissed as having become infructuous. .

¶21

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 GS

¶22

(Siddhartha Varma, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brij Raj Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Algu Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt. Urmila Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

State of U.P. and Another Vs C/M D.B.Janta Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya

Ram Bhawan Vs D.D.C. and Others