Dismissed

Sukhpal Singh v. Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Garwal Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC1 Mar 2024WPMS/66/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the respondent's plea for an additional Fair Price Shop Dealer, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The court held that the Village Panchayat's decision was not arbitrary given population needs and that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sl.
No

Date

Office Notes, reports,
orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No. 66 of 2022
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.

Mr. Tapn Singh, Advocate for the
petitioner.

2.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel with
Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.

3.
Mr.
Gaurav
Singh,
Advocate
for
respondent no. 5.
4.
Petitioner was appointed as Fair Price
Shop dealer for distribution of essential
commodities in Village Akbarpur Dhadheki,
Block
Narsan,
Tehsil
Roorkee,
District
Haridwar. A demand was raised by the
residents of the said village that, having
regard to the population of the said village,
which is stated to be about 7,000, one more
Fair Price Shop is required. Pursuant to such
demand,
District
Magistrate
issued
instruction to his subordinate officer to do
needful in the matter. Ultimately, an open
meeting of Village Panchayat was convened
on 07.06.2017, in which a resolution was
passed to recommend respondent no. 5 for
appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealer.
Ultimately,
District
Magistrate
appointed
respondent no.5 as Fair Price Shop Dealer
vide order dated 24.12.2018. In this writ
petition,
petitioner
has
challenged
the
resolution passed by Village Panchayat on
07.06.2017
and
also
the
order
dated
24.12.2018 passed by District Magistrate,
Haridwar in favour of respondent no.5.
5.
Petitioner has challenged the resolution
passed by Village Panchayat on the ground
that
quorum
of
the
meeting
held
on
07.06.2017 was not complete. He has also
questioned appointment of respondent no.5

as Fair Price Shop Dealer on the ground that, having regard to the number of units in the concerned village, appointment of another Fair Price Shop Dealer is not warranted.
6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the resolution passed by Village Panchayat and also the order passed by District Magistrate, appointing respondent no.5 as Fair Price Shop Dealer. A Fair Price Shop Dealer is appointed to distribute food grains under public distribution system to the poor and needy persons. Since the villagers had made a demand for appointing another Fair Price Shop Dealer in the village, as petitioner alone was not able to serve the people, therefore, resolution passed by Village Panchayat and the decision taken by the District Magistrate, cannot be faulted. Perusal of the resolution passed by Village Panchayat reveals that residents of the village were not satisfied with the petitioner and they wanted additional dealer to be appointed. The dealership of the petitioner has not been terminated by the resolution/ order impugned in this writ petition. Appointment of another dealer on the request of the villagers cannot be said to be so arbitrary, which may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, specifically when the population of the village is about 7,000. Since no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by appointment of respondent no.5 as dealer, thus petitioner has no locus to question the decision taken by Village Panchayat/ District Magistrate. 7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 01.03.2024 Navin

as Fair Price Shop Dealer on the ground that,
having regard to the number of units in the
concerned village, appointment of another
Fair Price Shop Dealer is not warranted.

6.
This Court is not inclined to interfere
with
the
resolution
passed
by
Village
Panchayat and also the order passed by
District Magistrate, appointing respondent
no.5 as Fair Price Shop Dealer. A Fair Price
Shop Dealer is appointed to distribute food
grains under public distribution system to the
poor and needy persons. Since the villagers
had made a demand for appointing another
Fair Price Shop Dealer in the village, as
petitioner alone was not able to serve the
people,
therefore,
resolution
passed
by
Village Panchayat and the decision taken by
the District Magistrate, cannot be faulted.
Perusal of the resolution passed by Village
Panchayat reveals that residents of the
village were not satisfied with the petitioner
and they wanted additional dealer to be
appointed. The dealership of the petitioner
has not been terminated by the resolution/
order
impugned
in
this
writ
petition.
Appointment
of
another
dealer
on
the
request of the villagers cannot be said to be
so arbitrary, which may warrant interference
of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, specifically when the population
of the village is about 7,000. Since no
prejudice is caused to the petitioner by
appointment of respondent no.5 as dealer,
thus petitioner has no locus to question the
decision taken by Village Panchayat/ District
Magistrate.
7.
In such view of the matter, the writ
petition fails and is dismissed. There will be
no order as to costs.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
01.03.2024
Navin

Sukhpal Singh v. Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Garwal Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhpal Singh v. Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Garwal Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Stone Crusher Ranihaat Chauras Vs State of Uttarakhand

Lalit Singh Bathiyal Contractor Vs Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate

Rishipal Singh Vs National Highway Authority of India

M/S Chauhan Construction Damta Barkot Uttarkashi Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Public Work Department N.H. Division

M/S Chauhan Construction Damta Barkot Uttarkashi Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Public Work Department N.H. Division

Akram Ali Vs Tehsildar Kashipur Udham Singh Nagar