Dismissed

Smt. Pushpa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Sectt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/2000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought a fair price shop license. The court rejected the claim, holding no law permits granting a license directly on application without a Gaon Sabha proposal, thus mandamus could not issue.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request for a direction to provide a fair price shop and release goods was rejected.

Smt. Pushpa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18738

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2000 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply Sectt. U.P. Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunder Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sunder Lal, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶8

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the competent authority to provide the retail fair price shop for Gram Sabha Rampur Kasiya Rahtika, District Pratapgarh in favour of petitioner and to direct the Supply Officer to release the goods for distribution to the villagers within stipulated period.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a social worker and the resident of the aforesaid village and due to some dispute the fair price shop is not functioning. In the aforesaid circumstances, he has submitted that the competent authority may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶10

A perusal of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.11.2021 and 18.07.2022 annexed along present writ petition indicate that a prayer has been made by the petitioner to grant fair price shop license in his favour.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that for grant of fair price shop, a procedure has been prescribed in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 where only after a proposal is passed by the gaon sabha, the same is scrutinized to the Tehsil Level Authorities and only subsequently the competent authority grants the fair price shop license. He submits that there is no provision for grant of fair price shop by the competent authority without there being a proposal passed by the gaon sabha and accordingly submits that merely on the application of the petitioner the fair price shop license cannot be granted. The petitioner could not show any provision by which the fair price shop can be granted on his making an application to the District Magistrate.

¶12

In absence of any provision in this regard, no such direction as sought by the petitioner can be given by this Court as there is no law or rules or government order providing for grant of the fair price shop license merely on making an application before the competent authority. A writ of mandamus can only be issued to the authorities to abide by the provisions of law. Without being any law, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued and in the aforesaid circumstances, the direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Ravi/

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Pushpa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Sectt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Sectt. U.P. Lucknow 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union of India Thru the General Manager Northern Railway Bar Vs Ram Yadi S/O Chullahi Posted Under Chief Inspector of Works

Rajmani Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Environment, Forest and Climate Change Lko. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Keswani Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi and 3 Others

Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division and2 Ors. Vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and Another

Atul Meharotra Vs District Judge Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Noor Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others