Dismissed

Krishna Kumar (in Adhar Krishn Krishnakumar) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025/9434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an order allowing respondent's appeal against an adverse order passed as fair price shop dealer. The petitioner claimed locus under Article 21 to receive essential commodities. The Court held the right flows regardless of who the dealer is and dismissed the petition for want of merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Krishna Kumar (in Adhar Krishn Krishnakumar) Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 9434 of 2025

¶3

Krishna Kumar (In Adhar Krishn Krishnakumar)

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nagendra Pratap Singh

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel.

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 02.07.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.3 was allowed by the authorities concerned.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the complainant, is that a detailed order was passed against respondent No.3 on 01.04.2025, which was challenged by respondent No.3 in an appeal. After hearing the parties, the appeal came to be allowed.

¶14

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, for justifying the locus to approach this Court, is that the petitioner has a right of getting essential food items for his livelihood, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is not being provided by the respondent No.3, as such, he has a right to approach this Court.

¶15

The said submission merits rejection for the reasons that the right to get essential food items will flow in favour of the petitioner irrespective of who is the fair price shop dealer. In case, the right of the petitioner to get the essential commodities is affected, he can very well approach this Court or authorities concerned. The said right does not confer any locus on the petitioner to challenge the order impugned.

¶16

WRIC No. 9434 of 2025

¶17

¶18

The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶20

September 23, 2025 Ashutosh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Krishna Kumar (in Adhar Krishn Krishnakumar) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Krishna Kumar (in Adhar Krishn Krishnakumar) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mangla Devi Smarak Polytechnic College, Thru. Authorized Signatory, Samar Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko and Others

Raghav Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Education and Another

C/M Lps Jankipuram Thru. Manager Sh. Lokesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhakar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sarvajanik Pharmacy College Thru. Manager Uday Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Bal Fot Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 9 Others