Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2329 (ALL)

Som Pal v. State of U. P.

2013-09-17

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Satya Poot Mehrotra and Anjani Kumar Mishra, JJ. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 7.8.2013 ( Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition ). 2. It appears that the respondent no.5 was allottee of the Fair -Price Shop in question. By the order dated 23.3.2013( Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition ), the licence of the respondent no.5 was cancelled, and security deposit of Rs. 5000/- made by the respondent no.5, was forfeited. It further appears that pursuant to the said order dated 23.3.2013, the Block Development Officer concerned sent a communication dated 28.3.2013 to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat concerned for resolution in the Open Meeting of the Gram Panchayat making proposal for allotment of the Fair-Price in question. 3 Thereafter, the resolution was passed on 10.4.2013 in the Meeting of Gaon Sabha concerned recommending the name of the petitioner for allotment of the Fair -Price Shop in question. The said Resolution was sent by the Block Development Officer concerned to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned by the communication dated 11.4.2013 . 4 Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no allotment of the Fair -Price Shop in question has been made pursuant to the said Resolution dated 10.4.2013. 5 It further appears that against the said order dated 23.3.2013, whereby the licence of the respondent no. 5 in respect of the Fair-Price Shop in question, was cancelled, the respondent no.5 filed an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner concerned. 6. By the order dated 20.6.2013, the Divisional Commissioner concerned allowed the said Appeal filed by the respondent no.5, set -aside the order dated 23.3.2013, and remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned for deciding afresh. It was further observed in the said order dated 20.6.2013 that the suspension of the licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair-Price Shop in question would continue to remain operative till the matter was decided by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. 7 Pursuant to the said order dated 20.6.2013, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned considered the matter and passed the order dated 7.8.2013, whereby the licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair-Price Shop in question, was restored, while maintaining forfeiture of the security deposit made by the respondent no.5. 7 Pursuant to the said order dated 20.6.2013, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned considered the matter and passed the order dated 7.8.2013, whereby the licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair-Price Shop in question, was restored, while maintaining forfeiture of the security deposit made by the respondent no.5. 8 The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 9 We have heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 10. From the narration of the facts mentioned above, it is evident that the proceedings for allotment of the Fair -Price Shop in question in favour of the petitioner were initiated on account of cancellation of the licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair -Price Shop in question. The said proceedings for allotment of the Fair -Price in question in favour of the petitioner were thus, dependent on the fate of the proceedings for cancellantion of the licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair Price shop in question. Therefore, once the licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair- Price Shop in question was restored by the order dated 7.8.2013, the proceedings for allotment of the Fair -Price Shop in question in favour of the petitioner could not continue. 11 Moreover, the proceedings for allotment of the Fair -Price shop in question in favour of the petitioner took place up to the stage of passing of resolution by the Gaon Sabha concerned, and sending of the resolution by the Block Development Officer concerned to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned . However, no allotment of the Fair -Price Shop in question was made in favour of the petitioner . 12. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the challenge to the order dated 7.8.2013 by the petitioner by filing the present Writ Petition can not be sustained. The petitioner has got no right or interest as yet in the Fair-Price Shop in question, and therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. 13 In consequence of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed . The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed