Sangit Kumar Nirmal Vs Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4037

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 185 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sangit Kumar Nirmal

¶5

Respondent :- Addl. Chief Secy. Food And Civil Supply Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 6 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Raibareilly, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop license holder in a meeting of the Gaon Sabha dated 17.11.2023 has been turned down on the basis of the complaints and a fresh proposal has been required to be submitted by the Gaon Sabha.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that repeatedly meeting have been held for appointment of the Fair Price Shop license holder in the Gaon Sabha. In the 6th meeting who took place on 17.11.2023, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition, the Pradhan did not appear and in his absence, the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) presided over the said meeting and the petitioner received the highest numbers of votes and consequently, his name has been proposed in the said meeting for being given the license of the Fair Price Shop.

¶10

Upon the said proposal being sent for approval to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the same has been turned by means of the order impugned dated 22.12.2023 on the ground that the said meeting has not been held in accordance with the Rules and thus the Sub Divisional Magistrate has required a fresh meeting to be held.

¶11

The contention is that repeatedly the meetings have been held and on one pretext or the other as soon as the petitioner succeeds in getting the highest numbers of votes in a meeting, the Pradhan tends to do disappearing act with the result that the proposal of the Gaon Sabha which is usually in his favour does not see the light of the day.

¶12

On the other hand, Sri Saharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on the basis of instructions submits that a perusal of the order dated 22.12.2023 explicitly indicates that as per rules governing the meeting of the

¶13

Gaon Sabha more particularly Rule 33 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1947") in the absence of the Pradhan, it is the Up-Pradhan who is to preside over the meeting. He contends that a perusal of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 17.11.2023 and even as per the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) who presided over the said meeting whereby rendering the meeting of the Gaon Sabha to be totally non-est in the eyes of law being patently violative of Rule 33 of the Rules, 1947 and consequently, there is no error in the Sub Divisional Magistrate having passed the order impugned.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records what emerges is that a meeting of the Gaon Sabha took place on 17.11.2023. Admittedly, the Pradhan was not present in the said meeting. In his absence, the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) presided over the said meeting. The petitioner received the highest numbers of votes for being allotted the Fair Price Shop license and upon a said proposal being sent to the competent authority i.e Sub Divisional Magistrate, the same has been disapproved vide order impugned dated 22.12.2023. A perusal of the said order would indicate that the competent authority has considered that the meeting of the Gaon Sabha was not convened in accordance with the rules more particularly Rule, 33 of the Rules, 1947 which categorically provides that it is the Pradhan who is to preside over the meeting and his absence, it is the UpPradhan. There cannot be any question of the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) presiding over the Gaon Sabha meeting.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid more particularly when admittedly the Pradhan or UpPradhan did not preside over the meeting of the Gaon Sabha rather it is the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) who presided over the meeting consequently, it cannot be said that the meeting of the Gaon Sabha dated 17.11.2023 was held in accordance with law and the relevant rules. Thus, no infirmity is found in the order impugned accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Pachhere/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sangit Kumar Nirmal v. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangit Kumar Nirmal v. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar S/O Sri Ram Asrey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary F and R Lucknow and Ors.

Subedar Khan Vs Smt. Kamla Sharma and Ors.

M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Lko.Throu Proprietor Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow and Another

Sachiv Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Rupaidiha Bahraich and Anr. Vs Radey Shyam Tiwari and Another

Smt. Arti Singh Vs District Magistrate, Distt. Raibareli and 3 Others

Ikrar Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others