Disposed

Maan Annapoorna Shg Id No. 31011323231. Thru. Its President Savitri Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024WRIC/1354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the allotment of lesser marks in a comparative chart for fair price shop license approval, alleging arbitrariness. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the Block Development Officer to consider the petitioner's representation expeditiously within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 6 (Block Development Officer, Katra Bazar, Gonda) to consider and decide petitioner's representation expeditiously within three weeks.

Maan Annapoorna Shg Id No. 31011323231. Thru. Its… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12810

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1354 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Maan Annapoorna Shg Id No. 31011323231. Thru. Its President Savitri Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply Deptt. Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Narayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Surya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the chart which has been approved by the Block Level Committee is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as lesser marks have been allotted to the petitioner contrary to the provisions contained in Clause - 3 of the Government Order dated 07.07.2020.

¶8

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is on the basis of said comparative chart, the fair price shop license will be granted.

¶9

After arguing the matter up to some length, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondent no. 6 - Block Development Officer, Katra Bazar, Gonda to consider and decide petitioner's representation expeditiously. It is submitted that in this regard petitioner has moved several representations before the authorities concerned, but till date no action has been taken.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in case suitable directions are issued to respondent no. 6 to consider and decide petitioner's representation.

¶11

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move fresh representation before respondent no. 6, in this regard within next two weeks. In case any such representation is moved by the petitioner within the prescribed time period, respondent no. 6 shall proceed to consider and decide the said representation expeditiously, say within three

¶12

weeks from the date of representation, in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.2.2024 A. Verma

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maan Annapoorna Shg Id No. 31011323231. Thru. Its President Savitri Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maan Annapoorna Shg Id No. 31011323231. Thru. Its President Savitri Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. Lko. and 8 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

Mirza Qamar Ali Vs Additional District Judge Sultanpur and Ors.

Vigyan Kumar and Another Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.6 Lakhimpur Kheri and Ors.

Ram Sewak Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko and Others

Maan Annapoorna Shg Id No. 31011323231. Thru. Its President Savitri Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Shamshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 7 Ors.

Mrs.Sushila Devi Bajaj and Anr. Vs Union of India through the Secy. New Delhi and Ors.