Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 67 (ALL)

TEENA DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-01-13

VINEET SARAN, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for State - respondents and have perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on a vacancy of a fair price shop dealer having occurred in the village in question, an open meeting of the Gaon Sabha was held on 28.7.2014 for proposing the selection of a fresh fair price shop dealer. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by requisition dated 28.7.2014 the name of the petitioner was proposed in the open meeting of the Gaon Sabha and on the basis of the same the form for appointment of a fair price shop dealer was duly filled up by the petitioner and forwarded by the Gram Vikas Vikas Adhikari to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 1.8.2014. Before the proposal could be accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, complaints were filed with regard to the said selection. With regard to the same, an enquiry was not conducted in which it was found that no open meeting of the Gaon Sabha was held on 28.7.2014. On the basis of the said enquiry report the impugned order dated 28.7.2014 has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejecting the proposal dated 28.7.2014 and directing for fresh open meeting of the Gaon Sabha to be held of which Video Recording may be taken. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. 5. The alleged proposal made in the favour of the petitioner has never been accepted and as such no right accrued in favour of the petitioner. The enquiry report was submitted by the competent officer and once it was found that no open meeting of the Gaon Sabha was held, the passing of the impugned order is fully justified in law. 6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner participating in the fresh selection process which may take place in accordance with law. 7. No costs. ——————