Dismissed

Neelam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024WRIC/8645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a proposal to allot a fair price shop, claiming he was wrongfully excluded. The Court held that no vested right arises until the final allotment letter is issued and the proposal remains subject to scrutiny by the Tehsil level committee. Writ petition was dismissed in the interest of justice, leaving room for future representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner given liberty to file representation before Tehsil level committee if proposal remains pending.

Neelam Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68460

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8645 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Neelam Mishra

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri Pankaj Gupta for the Village Panchayat.

¶8

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondent No.6 is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proposal dated 11.09.2024, passed by the Gaon Sabha - Bahaduri, Block - Jarwal, Tehsil - Kaiserganj, District - Bahraich.

¶10

It has been submitted by the petitioner that for allocation of new fair price shop at aforesaid gram sabha, proceedings were initiated for consideration of proposal in accordance with the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. It has been stated that the petitioner reached Panchayat Bhawan on 11.09.2024, on which date proposal was to be considered and forwarded to the authorities, but the application of the petitioner was not taken into consideration and proposal was passed in favour of respondent no. 6.

¶11

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been wrongly excluded from being considered for grant of fair price shop license in the Gram Panchayat and has prayed to set aside the proposal dated 11.09.2024.

¶12

Perusal of writ petition indicates that several letters have been written by the petitioner to the Sub Divisional Magistrate subsequent to passing of the said proposal, but there is no application given by the petitioner before the Gram Panchayat, but it is only subsequently to various representations having been given to the authorities where it has been stated that his candidature has not been considered. In the aforesaid facts prayer has been made for quashing the proposal dated

¶13

11.09.2024.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition by submitting that merely passing of proposal by the Gram Panchayat, does not create any vested right in the name of the person who name has not been forwarded for grant of fair price shop license in a particular Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that as per provisions of Government Order dated 05.08.2019, it is provided that only proposal has to be forwarded by the Gram Panchayat in its open meeting. The said proposal has to be considered and scrutinised by a Committee headed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which is known as the Tehsil level committee. Once the proposal is scrutinised and considered by the Tehsil level committee, it is open for the said committee either to approve the proposal or in case there is any infirmity or any ineligible person has been considered the proposal can be rejected and the consideration in this regard has to be informed to the District Magistrate. In case the District Magistrate on finding that the proceedings are in order will proceed to grant license for running fair price shop or in case he is not satisfied with the proceedings, the proposal will be returned back for fresh consideration.

¶15

With regard to holding of meeting it is provided that proposal has to be forwarded in an open meeting. There is no provision that all the persons who participate their names have to be recommended or that consideration has to be made in any particular manner or merit or qualification or eligibility criteria, mentioned in the Government Order in question. The Government Order provides for forwarding the proposal in an open meeting by the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently the said proposal has to be passed by the majority of members present and voting in a particular Gram Panchayat. It is needless to say that scrutiny has to be done only by the Tehsil level committee with regard to eligibility of the proposed candidate.

¶16

In the aforesaid circumstances it is noticed that unsuccessful persons do not have any right to challenge the said proposal such right would vest only after an order of allotment is passed in favour of any person whose name is proposed by the Gram Panchayat. After passing of the such proposal by the Gram Panchayat, scrutiny is done by the Tehsil level committee headed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and in case any infirmity is found with regard to eligibility or any other condition, the said proposal may be rejected and sent back for fresh consideration. It is only when the proposal is accepted the fair price shop license is granted, same can be subject to challenge by any unsuccessful candidate.

¶17

The proposal has to be passed in favour of the person who secures majority of votes. In such a situation there is no relevancy of consideration of merit of the candidates instead the person who secures majority of votes in the Gram Panchayat, his name is recommended and proposal is duly forwarded.

¶18

Any Person who is aggrieved by the proposal and not particularly by ineligibility of the person whose name has been so proposed can make a representation to the Tehsil level authority so as to bring to their knowledge the relevant facts with regard to ineligibility of the person whose name has been so proposed.

¶19

As already discussed earlier, the aspect with regard to eligibility is considered by the Tehsil level authorities. It is also noticed that merely by passing of the proposal, no right vests in the person in whose favour proposal has been passed as the said proposal has to be scrutinized by the Tehsil level authorities and only when the same is in order, recommendation is made to the District Magistrate and allotment letter is issued. It is the agreement entered into by the allottee, where vested right accrues in his favour and it is only on the basis of allotment letter that the process of allotment can be questioned.

¶20

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that till such time when allotment is made, any person claiming himself to be a candidate cannot challenge the proposal and accordingly for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition at this stage could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

However, it is provided that in case the Tehsil Level Committee has not taken final decision with regard to the proposal dated 11.9.2024, it may consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, in accordance with law.

¶22

With aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 RKM.

¶25

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

Neelam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prahlad Narayan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.of Transport Civil Sectt.andORS.

Saleem Akhtar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Transport Deptt.Lko. and Ors.

Altaful Hasan Vs State of U.P.Thru Its Secy.Deptt.of Transport Lucknow and Ors.

Rampher @ Ramafere Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Neelam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Tilak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others