Disposed

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/80/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of Fair Price Shop selection proposal. Court disposed petition directing SDM to consider pending representation within four weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent no.3 to consider petitioner's representation and pass order within four weeks.

What the court decided

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2092

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 80 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manmohan Lal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 9.

¶8

Notice on behalf of respondent no.10 has been accepted by Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey.

¶9

No notice be issued to respondent no.11 taking into consideration nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶10

The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the proposal / entire selection proceedings of fair price shop situated at Village- Darigapar, Block Ishanagar, DistrictLakhimpur Kheri, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the said proposal, respondent no.9 has been given a fair price shop license which cannot be given to her on account of the reasons as indicated in the representation which has been submitted by the petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. respondent no.3, vide representation dated 19.12.2023, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the petition. He prays that the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law within a fixed time.

¶12

To the aforesaid prayer, learned Standing counsel has no

¶13

objection.

¶14

Accordingly, considering that the petitioner has already submitted representation against proposal in favour of the respondent no.11 on various grounds vide his representation dated 19.12.2023 which is still under consideration before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. respondent no.3, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 to consider the said representation as has been filed by the petitioners and pass an order upon the same in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶15

It is also provided that while sending the certified copy of this order, a copy of the representation date 19.12.2023 shall again be annexed with the same.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioner.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.1.2024 S. Shivhare

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Vinod Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Udai Pratap Singh Vs Commissioner Faizabad and Another

Uttam Kumar Pal Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and Another

Bhulaei Vs Collector and Ors.

Fakire Vs District Magistrate/Collector, Lko. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others