Deramani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024WRIC/2652/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an SDM order remanding a fair price shop license case, the High Court permitted impleader of the gaon sabha, granted a stay on the impugned order, and listed the matter for arguments regarding appointment by lottery.

What did the court decide?

Stayed operation of the order dated 03.02.2024 until next listing.

Deramani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2652 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Deramani

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he may be permitted to implead gaon sabha as respondent and accordingly he is permitted to file appropriate application for impleading gaon sabha as a respondent.

¶8

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda thereby remanding the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for consideration afresh.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the dispute pertains to the grant of a fair price shop license for Grampanchayat Bhartha Itihia Vikas Khand Katra Bazaar Tehsil Colonelganj, District Gonda. When the erstwhile license holder Anarkali died on 13.11.2014 subsequent to her death no allotment was made. Whenever proceedings for allotment were initiated several disputes arose on each occasion due to which the name could not be finalized. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the fair price shop license was not issued for number of years that a decision was taken to allot the fair price shop license after inviting applications from desirous persons as per the existing Government Order.

¶10

Accordingly, the District Magistrate vide order dated 25.11.2016 directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to initiate the process for selection of fair price shop licensee where the gaon sabha has failed to convene the open meeting and in compliance of the government order dated 17.08.2002. An advertisement was issued in pursuance to which the petitioner applied and there were only three applications and the Tehsil Level Committee by draw of lottery appointed the petitioner as fair price shop licensee by means of the order dated 27.12.2016.

¶11

Since the said date, the petitioner is continuing to run his fair price shop. Respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Food). In the said appeal, it was stated that the procedure which was supposed to have been followed has not been followed and merely by draw of lotteries appointment of a fair price dealer cannot be made and the second ground was that the said shop was for general category while illegally it has been shown to be reserved.

¶12

The appellate authority has merely considered the fact that the high Court in one of its order dated 21.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 1293 (SS) of 2017 has held that allotment cannot be held on the basis of a lottery system and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the S.D.M. and consequent remanded the mater.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand has submitted that his appointment was made in terms of the advertisement made by the respondents and no deviation therefrom has taken place. He has further stated the the appellate authority could not have set aside the advertisement and such a prayer if any could have been passed only by the writ court and not by the appellate authority. He lastly submits that there were no allegation with regard to his running the fair price shop.

¶14

In light of the above, the matter requires consideration.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of the order dated 03.02.2024 shall remain stayed.

¶17

List this case on 10.05.2024.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 21.3.2024 Ravi/

¶20

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

Deramani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deramani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 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

Ramanand Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mr. X Thru. His Father Mr. Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raj Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Mangal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sameer Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another