Dismissed

Ram Mohan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023WRIC/3355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of a fair price shop. The court found no irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondent as the petitioner failed to substantiate claims regarding the Gram Sabha resolution or publication of information.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it had no force due to the absence of procedural irregularity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3355 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Mohan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta,Prashant Sharma,Srikant Tiwari

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Staterespondents.

¶5

The petitioner has not declared himself to be a claimant for allotment of fair price shop in village concerned, however, counsel for petitioner orally submits that he was one of the claimant.

¶6

Learned counsel further submits that Gram Sabha has adopted a resolution in the month of February, 2018 to allot fair price shop by way of a secret ballot and for further proceedings it was forwarded to respondent No.3 (Sub-Divisional Officer). However, on one hand, he does not proceed further and on other hand on 04.05.2018 issued a notification/information for allotment of fair price shop in accordance to the provisions of G.O. dated 17.08.2002 and thereafter procedure was concluded.

¶7

Learned counsel further submits that procedure adopted by respondent was erroneous and petitioner and similar situated persons were not informed and as such they were not able to participate in process. Consequently, allotment in favour of respondent No.5 may be cancelled.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel for State submits that since Gram Sabha was not able to take a resolution in regard to allotment of fair price shop, therefore the concerned authority was under obligation to take the procedure prescribed in above referred Government Order by way of inviting applications and thereafter concluded the procedure.

¶9

The petitioner has not able to come up with any material that Gram Sabha has taken any steps to take a resolution in accordance to the procedure prescribed in open meeting of Gram Sabha, therefore, concerned respondent was within its jurisdiction to conclude the procedure for allotment of fair price shop in terms of above referred Government Order.

¶10

It has not been disputed that procedure prescribed therein has been followed. Petitioner has also not come up with any specific ground or averment supported by any material that no information in regard to allotment was not published in newspaper or petitioner was intentionally not informed regarding the procedure.

¶11

I do not find that there is any irregularity or illegality in procedure adopted for allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No.4.

¶12

Accordingly this writ petition has no force and dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 P. Pandey

¶14

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

Ram Mohan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mohan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Trust Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sangeeta Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Indu @ Indu Devi Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Vijay Saraswat Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shivani Sharma Self Help Group through Its Chairman Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jageer Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others