Dismissed¶40

Dilip Lal Srivastav v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Feb 2025WA/398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair Price Shop licence cancellation and restoration; Lakhipur GPSS, Cachar, Assam; Food and Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department; intra-court writ appeal against Single Judge's refusal to interfere; unsuccessful applicant's fundamental/legal rights not violated; vacancy ceased on restoration; appeal dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

The appellant has not challenged the initial allotment of the Fair Price Shops in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7; hence, simply because the licences were cancelled and thereafter restored cannot be said to be violative of any fundamental or legal right of the appellant. ¶37

Dilip Lal Srivastav Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation and subsequent restoration of the Fair Price Shop licences of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 violates any fundamental or legal right of the appellant so as to warrant interference by this Court. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The vacancy against which the appellant applied for a Fair Price Shop licence had arisen on account of cancellation of the licences of respondent Nos. 6 and 7; with the restoration of their licences the very same vacancy ceased to exist, and therefore no question arose for consideration of the appellant's application.

¶38

Key takeaways

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out, and the intra-court appeal is dismissed in limine.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ; bench with N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.), 10.02.2025 — WA/398/2024, Dilip Lal Srivastav v. State of Assam & 6 Ors: Intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 06.11.2024 in WP(C) No. 5685/2024 declining to interfere with the restoration of Fair Price Shop licences of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (Manika Paul and Bijon Bihari Paul) under Lakhipur GPSS, Cachar — licences cancelled on 19.04.2022 by the Superintendent, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Lakhipur, and restored on 20.08.2024 and 21.08.2024 in departmental appeals. Held: (i) the appellant never challenged the initial allotment of the shops, so their cancellation and restoration violated no fundamental or legal right of his; (ii) the vacancy against which he applied for a licence ceased to exist upon restoration, so his application required no consideration. Appeal dismissed in limine.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010240392024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WA/398/2024

¶6

DILIP LAL SRIVASTAV

¶7

S/O- LATE JOY GOBINDA SRIVASTAV, R/O- VILLAGE- LALONGKITTA, LABAKPAR PART II, P.O- PAILAPOOL, P.S- LAKHIPUR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788004

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6.

¶11

2:THE DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT

¶12

GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN 781005

¶13

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

¶14

CACHAR

¶15

SILCHAR ASSAM PIN 788001

¶16

4:THE CO- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

¶17

CUM SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶18

LAKHIPUR CACHAR ASSAM

¶19

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT

¶20

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS LAKHIPUR SUB DIVISION

¶21

Page No.# 2/4

¶22

P.O AND P.S- LAKHIPUR CACHAR ASSAM 6:MANIKA PAUL S/O- LATE BINOD BIHARI PAUL R/O- VILLAGE-GANTERGRAM P.O- PAILAPOOL P.S- LAKHIPUR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788004 7:BIJON BIHARI PAUL S/O- LATE BINOD BIHARI PAUL R/O- VILLAGE-GANTERGRAM P.O- PAILAPOOL P.S- LAKHIPUR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800

¶23

For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. T. Sk., Advocate

¶24

For respondent(s) : Mr. N. Das, GA, Assam

¶25

– BEFORE –

¶26

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶27

10.02.2025

¶28

(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

¶29

This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 06.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5685/2024.

¶30

Page No.# 3/4

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that the licences to run Fair Price Shops under Lakhipur GPSS, issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein as well in the writ petition, were cancelled by the Superintendent, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Lakhipur, Cachar, vide order dated 19.04.2022. Against the said order of cancellation, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 preferred a writ petitions before this Court and also filed a departmental appeals under the provisions of law.

¶32

Upon cancellation of the licences issued in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, vacancy had arisen and, pursuant to that the appellant filed application for grant of Fair Price Shop licence under Lakhipur GPSS in his favour. However, the appeals preferred by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 against cancellation of their Fair Price Shop licences were allowed and their licences were restored vide order dated 20.08.2024 and 21.08.2024, respectively. Pursuant to that, the writ petitions filed by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were dismissed as infructuous.

¶33

Being aggrieved with the restoration of licences of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the appellant approached the writ court. However, the writ court has refused to interfere while observing that it is not the case of the appellant that the initial grant of the retail licences for operating Fair Price Shops in favour the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was illegal and the cancellation of those licences and subsequent restoration of the same cannot be said to be violative of any fundamental or legal right of the appellant.

¶34

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶35

True it is that the appellant has not challenged the initial allotment of the Fair Price Shops in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Hence, simply

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

because the licences were cancelled and thereafter restored cannot be said to be violative of any fundamental or legal right of the appellant.

¶38

Apart from that, the vacancy against which the appellant applied for Fair Price Shop licence, had arisen on account of cancellation of the licences issued in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. However, with the restoration of their licences, the very same vacancy ceased to exist and, in such circumstances, no question arose for consideration of the application filed by the appellant for grant of Fair Price Shop licence.

¶39

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out.

¶40

Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

¶41

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Dilip Lal Srivastav v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Lal Srivastav v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Haloi and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Nabajyoti Sarma Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 3 Ors.

Jadab Chandra Nath Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Masaddar Ali Laskar Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Ritumoni Borah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Abdul Kuddus