Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3761 (ALL)

Jaychand v. State of U. P.

2016-11-21

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. Present counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the State. Heard and perused the records. 2. The fair price shop in village Bhatola Sariki, Post Ujhari, Block Hasanpur, Tehsil Hasanpur, District Amroha/J.P. Nagar was allotted to Vijayveer Singh, who died on 12.9.2016. Then his wife Smt. Rajendra had moved application for allotment of said shop to her. After considering said application, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hasanpur, Amroha/J.P. Nagar had passed impugned order dated 7.10.2016, by which application of Smt. Rajendari was allowed and she was directed to be appointed as allottee of said fair price shop. This impugned order dated 7.10.2016 has been challenged by the petitioner through present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petition submitted that impugned order has been passed by SDM, Hasanpur on the basis of recommendation dated 7.10.2016 of Tehsil Leval Committee. His submission is that such Committee has no right to make recommendation and the impugned order passed on such recommendation is erroneous and is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned standing counsel pointed out the relevant provisions and submitted that impugned order is appealable, therefore, in view of available alternative remedy, this writ petition should not be allowed. 5. The Uttar Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 has been implemented by notification dated 10.8.2016. Clause 13 (1) of said Order reads as under: - "Appeal in relation to action or subject covered under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and rules framed under it shall lie before the authority mentioned in sub-clause (10) of clause 11 of this order but appeal against appointment, suspension and cancellation of fair price shop by the Competent Authority shall lie before the Divisional Commissioner." 6. Thus in view of this provision, it is apparent that impugned order of allotment of shop is an appealable order and any person aggrieved by such order can prefer appeal. 7. The High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. No exceptional circumstance appears available in this case that require exercise of writ jurisdiction even in presence of available remedy to aggrieved person by way of appeal. 8. No exceptional circumstance appears available in this case that require exercise of writ jurisdiction even in presence of available remedy to aggrieved person by way of appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he was not party to the proceedings before Sub Divisional Magistrate when the matter relating to allotment of shop in question was being considered there, therefore he is not in a position to prefer appeal; so in these circumstances, only remedy available to him to file writ petition before this Court. This contention is also not unacceptable. Any person, who is ''aggrieved' by any order, or whose legal rights are prejudiced by any order, can prefer appeal, if such order is appealable. If any legal rights of the petitioner or any person is prejudiced by impugned order, then he can prefer appeal in accordance with law against such order, otherwise not. If he is not ''aggrieved person' then he cannot get relief in the writ jurisdiction. 9. The expression 'person aggrieved' means a person who has suffered a legal grievance, that is a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has lawfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person by merely being a member of Gaon Sabha or being in interested in allotment of shop to other person. The order of grant of license of fair price shop to any person does not affect him in any manner. 10. A ''legal right' means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. The expression ''person aggrieved' does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury. A person aggrieved must necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. A person aggrieved, means a person who is wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal in convenience. ''Person aggrieved' means a person who is injured or his legal right is adversely affected. 11. No legal or constitutional right of the petitioner is involved in the present case, hence would not be an aggrieved person. Thus the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain a writ. So the relief sought by him is declined. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.