Dismissed

Ram Pratap Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024WRIC/3372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge writ petition challenging the allotment of a fair price shop to a women self help group. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi as no legally enforceable right was violated regarding the specific allotment process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed in the interest of justice.

Ram Pratap Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30883

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3372 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies, Lko. And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Umesh Chandra Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.6 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to enquire into the allotment of fair price shop in favour of the opposite party no.6 pertaining to Village Vibharpur, Block and Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, which, as per the petitioner, violates the provisions of Government Order dated 05.08.2019.

¶7

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Krishna Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh was constituted on 29.08.2013 and it was allotted the fair price shop license in the year 2022. The petitioner claims that the opposite party no.6/Smt. Pooja Yadav who is member of the Samooh, is the daughter in law of Village Pradhan and therefore as per the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019, she was not entitled for allotment of fair price shop license in her favour.

¶8

The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that Suresh Kumar was elected Village Pradhan of Gram Panchayat

¶9

Vibharpur in the Panchayat Elections held in the year 2021.

¶10

On the basis of written instructions provided by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that it is provided in the Government Order dated 07.07.2020 bearing no.02/2020/775 29.06.2020-162 सस /2001 that first preference will be given to self help groups while allotting fair price shop license. An open meeting was held for selection of fair price shop dealer for the aforesaid village on 29.09.2022 in which Krishna Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh was selected for grant of fair price shop license. Another self help group namely Jay Ambey Swayam Sahayata Samooh had also applied for grant of fair price shop license but it was not found eligible as per the conditions in the government order and accordingly the fair price shop license was granted to Krishna Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh.

¶11

It has also been stated in the instructions that the opposite party no.6 is not a member of family of Ram Badan Yadav, Gram Pradhan.

¶12

It has also been stated in the instruction that the wife of Village Pradhan Suresh Pandey was the Secretary of Krishna Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh at the time of allotment of shop but presently she is not member of self help group. The opposite party no.6 has joined self help group on 10.7.2019. The shop was allotted to Krishna Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh in the year 2022. The shop has not been allotted to any individual person and it has not been allotted in violation of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

¶14

petitioner had applied for grant of fair price shop license but his application had wrongly been declined.

¶15

In this regard it is significant to note that the Government Order dated 07.07.2020 bearing no.02/2020/775 29.06.2020162 सस /2001 provides that preference shall be given to woman self help groups in the allotment of fair price shop and the petitioner is a gentleman who cannot be a member of any woman self help group. There is no averment in the writ petition or in the supplementary affidavit to the effect that the petitioner had applied for grant of fair price shop license and his application had wrongly been turned down. Therefore, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶16

The petitioner has nowhere stated as to what legally enforceable right of the petitioner is involved in the present case and who has violated the same.

¶17

For maintaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the existence of legally enforceable right and violation thereof is a condition precedent, which is absent in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner does not have a locus standi to challenge the allotment of fair price shop to Krishna Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh, which has not been impleaded as an opposite party to the writ petition.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is Dismissed.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Ram.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Pratap Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, 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

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Shrasty Computer Solutions and Technologies, Lko. Thru. Proprietor Pravin Kumar Vs Employees Provident Organization Thru. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,New Delhi and 4 Others

Shesh Narayan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Ashok Mitra vs State, through C.B.I. /Bs and Fc/New Delhi

Smt. Suchita and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home,Lucknow and Another