Chandrawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024WRIC/1189/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge directed notice to a fair price shop licensee. The court considered challenges regarding a deceased Gram Pradhan's absence during part of the meeting and the pendency of criminal cases, noting questions on compliance with Government Order criteria.

What did the court decide?

Issue notice to respondent No.6; interim stay on allotment letter if issued.

Chandrawati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1189 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Chandrawati

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Civil Sectt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Tiwari,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Tushar Gupta holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta for respondent No.5.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Gonda whereby in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 5.1.2024 passed in Writ C No.35 of 2024 he has allowed the representation of respondent No.6 and further held that fair price shop license for Gram panchayat Bardand, Block Itiyathok should be allotted in his favour. In the said order it was stated that the meeting for allotment of the license for the said shop was held on 11.9.2023 on the said date proposal was passed in favour of respondent No.6 and forwarded to the Tehsil Level Committee. Objections were made by the petitioner with regard to the meeting held on 11.9.2023 and it was stated that the meeting was not attended by the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and accordingly due to the said infirmity the resolution could not have been acted upon.

¶8

The Tehsil Level Committee duly considered the objections preferred by the petitioner and held that the proposal had infirmities and by the order dated 4.11.2023 returned the matter back to the Gram panchayat for passing a fresh proposal. Against the order dated 4.9.2023 a writ petition was fled by respondent No.6 before this Court bearing Writ C No.35 of 2024 which was disposed of by means of order dated 5.1.2024 giving liberty to respondent No.6 to file a representation before District Magistrate, Gonda who was directed to be consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.

¶9

The District Magistrate in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court dated 5.1.2024 duly considered the

¶10

representation and allowed the same. While considering the said representation he has taken into account the report submitted by District Supply Officer dated 27.9.2023 where it was found that Gram Pradhan was present when the meeting had started and also when the counting had taken place with regard to proposing the name of the fair price shop licensee. It is only at the fag end of the meeting that the the Gram Pradhan received information about demise of his mother and left the meeting. In the aforesaid circumstances the District Magistrate has held that there was no infirmity in the meeting held on 11.9.2023 and consequently was of the opinion that respondent No.6 deserves to be given the license.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the fact that the Gram Pradhan was not present in the said meeting, another ground raised by the petitioner is with regard to pendency of criminal case against respondent No.6. He submits that non cognizance report was lodged against respondent No.6 under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. Though this fact has been noticed by the District Magistrate but there is no finding as to whether pendency of criminal case will have any bearing on grant of license to respondent No.6. It is stated that according to para IV (8) of the Government Order dated 5th August, 2019 at the time of allotment no criminal case should be pending against a person whose name is to be considered for grant of fair price shop license. On the face of it, not returning any finding with regard to the same may render the order infirm and liable to be interfered by this Court and accordingly, the matter requires consideration.

¶12

Issue notice to respondent No.6. Steps be taken within ten days.

¶13

List on 19.3.2024 in top ten cases.

¶14

As an interim measure, it is provided that any allotment letter, if already issued in favour of respondent No.6, shall be subject to outcome of the present case and in case any order of allotment has not been issued, the same shall not be issued till the next date of listing.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 RKM.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandrawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Singh @ Ankur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Chandra Bhushan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jalaluddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ankit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others