The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of a PDS depot, holding the petitioner had no cause of action as he failed to submit his application within the stipulated period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3238 of 2012 Decided on: 15.11.2017
| Sh. Raghubir Singh | … Petitioner | |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| State of H.P. & Ors. | ... Respondents | |
| Coram |
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment of fair price shop/ PDS Depot (for short the ‘Depot’) at Taruwala, Gram Panchayat, Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, in favour of respondent No. 4 and has filed the instant petition for the following substantive reliefs:-
2
the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4 as it was only on
3
account of his relative being the employee of respondent No. 3 that allotment was so made in his favour.
4
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
this case was issued on 16.08.2011 and the desirous applicants were asked to apply on or before 15.09.2011 in the office of respondent No. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not apply or submit his application to respondent No. 3 within the stipulated period and, therefore, has no cause of action whatsoever to file and maintain the instant writ petition and, consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
made party to the petition. Therefore, in absence of the so-called
5
relative as a party-respondent, such allegations cannot be countenanced.
are delightfully vague as would be evident from the allegations which are reproduced below:-
“Had the relative of respondent No. 4 was not serving in the Directorate of respondent No. 3, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 3 to allot the fair price shop to respondent No. 4.”
November 15, 2017
sanjeev
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has cause of action to challenge the allotment of the fair price shop given he missed the application deadline.
Whether there was fairness in the allotment process regarding publicity and merits of applicants.
Raghubir Singh
State of H.P.
Tarllok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
