Dismissed

Adarsh Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2025SPLA/160/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal challenging a single-judge order that set aside cancellation of a gram sabha resolution allotting a fair price shop to respondent no.8. The Division Bench held the resolution passed by majority was legal, notice deficiency was not specifically raised, and dismissed the appeal affirming the allotment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Adarsh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Sitting At Lucknow

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25770-DB

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 160 of 2025 Appellant :- Adarsh Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad,Surendra Singh,Vijay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Sunil Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 6. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.7, whereas, opposite party no.8 is represented by Sri H.P.Singh, learned counsel.

¶9

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the open meeting of gram sabha for the allotment of fair price shop in question was previously scheduled on 09.09.2024 which for the want of quorum could not be convened. The appellant who was a candidate in the meeting scheduled on 09.09.2024 again filed his candidature in the subsequent open meeting scheduled on 18.09.2024.

¶10

Thus, the appellant was a candidate in the first meeting as well as in the second meeting. In the second meeting scheduled on 18.09.2024, 374 persons had cast their votes in favour of the respondent no.8, whereas, all the persons who stood in support of the appellant ran away and did not choose to participate in the meeting.

¶11

It appears that based on the casting of votes by as many as 374 persons, the resolution of the gram sabha was treated to have been passed in favour of respondent no.8 and proceedings were accordingly forwarded to the Tehsil Level Committee. The appellant apprehending a decision on the resolution passed by the gram sabha on 18.09.2024 made a representation on 19.09.2024 before the S.D.M raising some general grievances therein. Based on the representation made on 19.09.2024, the appellant approached this Court through Writ-C No.8533 of 2024 which was disposed of in terms of order dated 01.10.2024 of which the relevant part is extracted

¶12

below:-

¶13

“ In the present case, petitioner has prayed for expeditious disposal of representation dated 19.09.2024 made by the petitioner along with several villagers jointly for cancellation of resolution dated 18.09.2024 passed in favour of respondent No. 6 accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 /SubDivisional Officer, Bikapur, Ayodhya to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 19.09.2024 (Anneuxre No. 4) expeditiously, in case the same has not been decided till date.”

¶14

The representation made by the appellant as aforesaid seems to have come up before the Tehsil Level Committee and the said committee after due application of mind passed an order on 24.10.2024 cancelling the resolution passed by the gram sabha on 18.09.2024. The Tehsil Level Committee further directed for a fresh open meeting of the gram sabha to be convened as per rules.

¶15

It is this order passed by the Tehsil Level Committee which was impugned by respondent no.8 in Writ-C No.

¶16

2905 of 2025 which was decided on 02.04.2025 giving rise to the present appeal.

¶17

The writ court on appreciating the facts has set aside both the orders namely the order passed by the Tehsil Level Committee on 24.10.2025 as well as the consequential order dated 28.10.2025 whereby the fresh meeting was scheduled. The Tehsil Level Committee was further directed to accord consideration of the statement of 169 persons who had participated in the resolution passed on 18.09.2024. The said statements were recorded during the course of inquiry held by the committee.

¶18

This Court would note that for the purposes of convening the meeting of gram sabha, Section 11 (2) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 prescribes as under:-

¶19

“11. Meeting and functions of the Gram Sabha

¶20

(1)------

¶21

(2) For any meeting of Gram Sabha one-fifth of the number of members shall form the quorum: provided that no quorum shall be necessary for a meeting adjourned for want of quorum.”

¶22

In the present case the first meeting of the gram sabha was scheduled on 09.09.2024 which for the want of quorum could not take place. Thereafter, the second meeting of the gram sabha was scheduled on 18.09.2024. In the normal course a meeting of the gram sabha is scheduled strictly in terms of Rule-33 Panchayat Raj Rules which prescribes a period of 15 days clear notice to the participating members. Rule-33 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 for ready reference is extracted below:- 33.Convening of meeting.

¶23

“The Pradhan, or in his absence the Up-Pradhan, at any time may, and on a written requisition signed by not less than one-third of the members shall, within fifteen days from the receipt of such requisition convene a meeting of a Gram Panchayat.”

¶24

Although Rule-33 prescribes a clear period of 15 days notice to the members of gram sabha but the grievances raised in the present case by the appellant when looked at in the backdrop of his representation dated 19.09.2024, it is amply clear that the same is confined to some general allegations and no specific case of notice was either put-forth or framed by him. This clearly implies that the aspect of notice to the members of gram sabha was never taken up in the representation which is indicative of the fact that all the members had due notice of the scheduled date i.e. 18.09.2024. It is also not the case before us that on the subsequent date of meeting, the supporters of the respondent no.8 were larger in member than the supporters of respondent no.8 i.e. 374. The decision by majority was not impeached by the appellant in his representation on the strength of any data or material whatsoever.

¶25

That being the position, we are of the considered view that the Tehsil Level Committee while cancelling the resolution passed by the gram sabha on 18.09.2024, had unduly unsettled the resolution for allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent no.8 and the resolution so passed on the principles of majority did not suffer from any illegality except for the fact that notice of 15 days period was not adhered to which aspect of

¶26

the matter was not opposed by the appellant who was himself a candidate in the proceeding.

¶27

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel for the State has informed that the Tehsil Level Committee having regard to the relevant consideration has passed an order on 01.05.2025 whereby the license of fair price shop has been granted in favour of respondent no.8 on the basis of the resolution dated 18.09.2024 and the matter has been brought to its logical conclusion.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant on all the relevant aspects of the matter we are not persuaded to intervene in so far as the judgement/order passed by the learned single judge is concerned. Once the same has been acted upon on due consideration of the entire material, giving legitimacy to the resolution passed by the gram sabha on 18.09.2024, the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of respondent no.8 herein deserves to be affirmed. Since no good ground was taken up by the appellant herein to challenge the same, the allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent no.8 in our considered opinion does not suffer from any illegality.

¶29

This intra-court appeal bereft of any merit is accordingly dismissed .

¶30

(Rajeev Singh,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)

¶31

Order Date :- 5.5.2025/Shahnaz

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Adarsh Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Adarsh Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 7 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

State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Animal Husbandry Lucknow and Anr. Vs Dr. Basant Singh

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Pankaj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Kaushal Kishore Misra and 3 Others Vs S.B.I. Thru. Its Chairman Corporate Centre Maharashtra and 2 Others

State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. State Tax Previously Tax and Registration Lko and Another Vs Surendra Kumar

S. Vignesh Shishir Vs Sri Rahul Gandhi and 13 Others