Dismissed¶18

Smt Neda Bano v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026WRIC/4136/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop dealership; allotment during pendency of statutory appeal; Gram Panchayat meeting convened by Block Development Officer, Chaka, Prayagraj; cancellation of dealership by respondent no.4 dated 25.08.2025; appeal pending before respondent no.2; clause 8(3) Government Order dated 05.08.2019; subsequent allottee no vested right if appeal allowed; no cause of action; writ petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar, J.; February 11, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's apprehension of third-party rights and multiplicity of proceedings is misplaced, because the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 specifically provides for allotment of fair price shop dealership during pendency of the appeal. ¶15

Smt Neda Bano vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 4136 of 2026

Smt Neda Bano

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Azad Rai, C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 36

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Ravi Prakash, holding brief of Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 5 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of respondent no.5 - Block Development Officer, Development Block Chaka, District Prayagraj, by which, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat has been convened to recommend the name of appropriate person for allotment of fair price shop dealership.

¶12

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that she was running a fair price shop in Gram Panchayat Dandupur Chaka, which was cancelled by the order of respondent no.4, dated 25.08.2025, against which statutory appeal has been preferred, which is pending disposal before respondent no.2.

¶13

During pendency of the appeal, fresh proceedings for allotment of fair price shop held by the petitioner have been initiated, which will create third party right leading to multiplicity of proceedings.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that in view of the provisions of clause 8(3) of the government order dated 05.08.2019, if any subsequent allottee is allotted the fair price shop during pendency of the appeal and the appeal is allowed, then the subsequent allottee does not have any vested right.

¶15

WRIC No. 4136 of 2026

¶16

¶17

In view of the specific provision for allotment of fair price shop dealership during pendency of the appeal being provided by the aforesaid government order, the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, no cause of action arises for the petitioner to challenge the fresh allotment of fair price shop during pendency of his appeal before the respondent no.2. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶20

February 11, 2026

¶21

Ashok Kr.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Neda Bano v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neda Bano v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhirendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Surya Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anand Bihari vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Triloki Nath vs the State of Up and 5 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Central Board of Trustees Epfo vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Another