Lalit Mohan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 7 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10400 of 2025

Lalit Mohan Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ekta Sharma, Anant Prakash Tewari, Malti Mishra, Vineet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Bipin Kumar Tiwari, Shobh Nath Pandey

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

1.Heard Shri Vineet Mishra, Shri A.P. Tiwari, & Ms. Ekta Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Ram Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 7, Shri Vipin Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 8, Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 9 and perused the material available on record.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed following relief:-

¶13

i). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quashing the name of opposite party no. 8 fair price shop of the Mohalla Tenduamafi, Bikapur, Nagar Panchayat, District Ayodhya, which has been considered after false lottery system held on 25.09.2025 passed by opposite party no. 3 in the interest of justice.

¶14

ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the district level authorities to consider the petitioner's candidature for allotment of fair price shop in Mohalla Tenduamafi, of course subject to fulfillment of all requisite conditions, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶15

The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the district authorities without following the conditions as prescribed in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 selected the respondent no. 8.

¶16

WRIC No. 10400 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 8 is the resident of Mohalla Tenduamafi and as such, being an outsider, he could not have been considered for allotment of the fair price shop in question. He further submitted that the authorities without cancelling the earlier advertisement dated 13.01.2024 in the most arbitrary manner issued another advertisement dated 17.06.2024, which is not permissible under law. He also pointed out certain anomalies in the process of selection.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that respondent no. 8 in favour of whom the fair price shop has been allotted vide order dated 29.09.2025 is the resident of Mohalla Nasipur Moosi, District Ayodhya, which is three kilometers away from Village Tenduamafi.

¶20

Shri Ram Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has been provided instructions/letter dated 17.10.2025 by District Supply Officer, Ayodhya, the same is taken on record. On the basis of instructions, he made a statement at the Bar that respondent no. 8 has already been allotted fair price shop vide order dated 25.09.2025 issued by the District Supply Officer, Ayodhya. He further submitted that since the allotment in favour of respondent no. 8 has already been made, the petitioner may take appropriate legal recourse before the appellate authority as provided under Section 13 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 8 has strongly opposed the present writ petition and justified the order of allotment dated 29.09.2025 passed in favour of respondent no. 8.

¶22

The fact that allotment of the fair price shop in favour of respondent no. 8 has not been denied by the parties.

¶23

In view of the fact that the statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.09.2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.

¶24

Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take legal recourse by filing an appeal a provided under Section 13 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016. Thus it is provided that if the petitioner prefers an appeal as provided under law within a period of ten days from today, the appellate authority shall entertain the same on merits, without raising any objection with regard to the limitation.

¶25

It is expected that the appeal if any, is filed within the time as

¶26

WRIC No. 10400 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

prescribed here-in-above, the appellate authority shall decide the same expeditiously.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶30

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶31

November 11, 2025

¶32

Virendra

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalit Mohan Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Mohan Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar Vs District Horticulture Officer,Lucknow and 6 Others

Smt. Vinti Pandey vs Dhananjay Tiwari

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Smt. Rajkumari Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Court No. 10 Raebareli and 6 Others

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi and Another Vs Civil Judge Malihabad (Senior Division) Lko. and 8 Others

New Adil Educational Society Thru. Manager Musahib Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others