Kaali Aajivika Self Health Group vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Heard Sri H.P. Sahi, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Manoj Kumar Rai, learned counsel on behalf of newly impleaded respondent nos.7 to 14.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, District Azamgarh dated 14.08.2025 allotting fair price shop dealership of Village Mehnajpur, Block Tarwan, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh to the respondent no.6.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was also an applicant for allotment of fair price shop dealership in the said village, in which respondent no.6 has been declared successful. It has challenged the said allotment on the ground that the notarial affidavit filed in support of

¶19

WRIC No. 35474 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

application of the respondent no.6 stating that no other fair price shop dealership has been allotted to the self help group is false and no objection certificate from the other members of the self help group is also not correct, in view of the impleadment application filed by 8 out of 11 members. He has further contended that respondent no.6 is already running a dealership for distributing the essential commodities in the Anganwadi Kendra in Village Mehnajpur. Thus, the allotment by the impugned order is contrary to the Government Orders and the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 10.10.2025, has placed instructions before the Court sent by Deputy District Magistrate, Lalganj, District Azamgarh.

¶23

In the said instructions it has been pointed out that the members and office-bearers of respondent no.6 have never distributed any scheduled essential commodities prior to the allotment made on 14.08.2025. He has also annexed with the instructions affidavit of ten members of the Khushi Ajeevika Swayam Sahayata Samooh , the respondent no.6, showing their consent that they have no objection in running the fair price shop dealership in Village Mehnajpur.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the affidavits filed by eight out of ten members of respondent no.6 who have submitted on oath filed as annexure-7 to the writ petition stating that the respondent no.6 is already distributing the scheduled essential commodities from the Anganwadi in Village Mehnajpur. It has been further stated in the affidavit that the shop may be allotted to some other group to which they have no objection.

¶25

The eight out of ten members of the respondent no.6 have also filed an impleadment application in the present writ petition and have reiterated the said facts in paragraphs-4, 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid impleadment application given by the husband of applicant no.1, which are as under:-

¶26

"4. That this group have a dealership for distributing the

¶27

WRIC No. 35474 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

essential commodities in the Aaganwadi Center in village Mehnajpur and other activity also conducted by the group.

¶30

5. That the group have overload of the work and he is not in position to conduct any other work but the president of the group is very ambitious person and she moved an application for dealership of the fair price shop in the village Mehnajpur.

¶31

6. That prior to filing of the application for the dealership of fair price shop in village Mehnajpur neither consent was taken by the members nor any open meeting was held by the chair person, all the members are not willing for running the fair price shop.

¶32

7. That in back of the other members of the group the president participated in the proceeding of the allotment of the fair price shop, when it came in the knowledge of the applicants, the applicants given affidavit before respondent no.3 that they does not want to run the fair price shop. This affidavit has been filed with writ petition."

¶33

The instructions sent by respondent no.3 is in contravention of the statement of the members of respondent no.6. The fact that the Chairman of respondent no.6 has given a false affidavit on behalf of its members can be verified only if they appear in person and support the facts stated by them in the affidavit filed alongwith the writ petition.

¶34

In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be proper that the respondent no.3 should give a post decisional hearing to the petitioner, respondent nos.7 to 14 and the Chairman of respondent no.6. The petitioner and respondent nos.7 and 14 will appear before respondent no.3 alongwith their objection and a certified copy of this order pursuant to which a notice will be given to Smt. Seema wife of Pradeep Maurya, the Chairman of Khushi Ajeevika Self Health Group and after hearing all the parties concerned, fresh order shall be passed by respondent no.3. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from today.

¶35

WRIC No. 35474 of 2025

¶36

4

¶37

The order of the respondent no.3 dated 14.08.2025 will abide by the fresh decision to be taken by the respondent no.3 in pursuance of the order being passed today in the present petition.

¶38

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶40

November 26, 2025

¶41

Shahroz

¶42

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaali Aajivika Self Health Group v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaali Aajivika Self Health Group v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Subash Chand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmveer Nishad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tara Chand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tara Singh vs Collector District Magistrate and 3 Others

Rajkumar Jain vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vikas Agrawal and Another