Dismissed¶15

Pankaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024WRIC/6709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pankaj v. State of U.P. and others, WRIT - C No. 6709 of 2021, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Abdul Moin, J., decided 21.2.2024 — cancellation of gram sabha proposal for fair price shop licence; accrual of right only upon approval of proposal by Sub-Divisional Magistrate; writ petition dismissed as premature; petitioner's contention that the order was passed without opportunity of hearing and contrary to government order dated 05.08.2019 not decided.

What did the court decide?

A gram sabha proposal for appointment as fair price shop licence holder remains a proposal alone until it is approved by the competent authority, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate; until such approval, no right fructifies or accrues to the person in whose favour the proposal has been passed. ¶5

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko.and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15640

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6709 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pankaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko.And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Srivastava,Atul Kumar Pathak,Avinash Tiwari,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Saharsh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 03.02.2021, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Colonelganj, District Gonda whereby the proposal sent by the gram sabha for allotment of fair price shop license in favour of the petitioner dated 02.02.2021 has not found favour and he has cancelled the said proposal and has remitted back the matter for fresh meeting to take place in order to select new license holder.

¶9

A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Saharsh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that it was only a proposal which was in favour of the petitioner for his appointment as a fair price shop license holder as sent by the gram sabha which has not found favour with the competent authority and as such no right has fructified to the petitioner in view of the proposal sent by the Gram Sabha in as much as it is only when a proposal is accepted by competent authority, in this case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that some right could have accrued to the petitioner. It is contended that a proposal remains a proposal till it is approved by the competent authority and the same not having been approved in the instant case, as such the

¶10

writ petition is itself liable to be dismissed as premature as no right has accrued to the petitioner.

¶11

Responding to the same, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons which have prevailed on the competent authority while not acceding to and accepting the proposal sent by the Gram Sabha are contrary to the government order dated 05.08.2019 and there has been patent non application of mind by the Sub Divisional Magistrate while not acceding to the said proposal and as such once the proposal was in favour of the petitioner consequently he acquired a right to get the fair price shop and when said proposal in favour of the petitioner has not found favour with the competent authority, as emerges from perusal of the order dated 03.02.2021, as such the said order could only have been passed after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which not having done, merits the order to be set aside.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that admittedly the order impugned dated 03.02.2021 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Gonda while considering the proposal sent by the Gram Sabha dated 02.02.2021 for appointment of the petitioner as a fair price shop license holder. Admittedly it was only a proposal which had gone for its approval before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gonda. Admittedly, it is the Sub Divisional Magistrate who approves the proposal sent by the Gram Sabha and it is only after approval that a right could accrue to a person in whose favour gram sabha has passed a resolution meaning thereby that till such time there is no approval to the proposal of gram sabha, the said proposal remains a proposal alone and no right could fructify or accrue to a person in whose favour the proposal may have been passed.

¶13

At the risk of repetition, it is submitted that a proposal only remains a proposal till such time it is approved by the competent authority, in this case the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who vide order impugned dated 03.02.2021 did not approve of the proposal meaning thereby that no right accrued to the petitioner in terms of the proposal that had been sent by the gram sabha.

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection as raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is upheld.

¶15

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Tax Lucknow Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P.Allahabad

Satya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dr. Kashika Srivastava Vs Dr. Abhishek Saxena

Shri Chandra Bali Junior High School Shahapur, Thru. Manager Chandrika Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ramlali Vs Addl.Commissioner Admin II Devi Patan Div.Gonda and Ors.

Shri Chandra Bali Junior High School Shahapur, Thru. Manager Chandrika Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others