Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 432 (ALL)

SRAWAN KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-02-04

H.G.RAMESH, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the materials on record. 2. The petitioner, after fulfilling all the requirements and completing the formalities required, said to have moved an application on 20th July, 2009 before the Regional Manager, IFFCO, Gorakhpur for issuance of a license for selling of manure and pursuant to which a survey has also been conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Socieities, Jungle Kauriya, Gorakhpur of the place where the shop was proposed. In the survey report, dated 13th August, 2009, the distance between the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and the place of the proposed shop was found to have been 3.5 Kilometers, which may not affect the sale centre of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti. Apart from it, the C.O. of IFFDC, Gorakhpur has also made verification of the spot and on such verification submitted a report dated 20th April, 2010 to the Deputy Area Manager, IFFCO, Gorakhpur. Despite aforesaid formalities having been completed, when the license has not been granted to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 7th September, 2010 to the respondent No. 3, which has been dismissed by the respondent No. 3, by the order dated 9th September, 2009, on the ground that no sale centre/franchise can be established in the area where the sale centre of the Society is likely to be affected. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order, dated 9th September, 2009, passed by the respondent No. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed shop of the petitioner is at a distance of about 3.5 kilometers from the sale centre of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and the sale of the Society is not going to be affected by any way. It is further submitted that in a letter, dated 23rd September, 2009, written by the respondent No. 3 to the Deputy Area Manager, IFFCO, Gorakhpur, it has been informed that by a letter, dated 19th December, 2008, issued by the Agriculture Production Commissioner it has been instructed that in those areas, where the Cooperative Societies are ineffective, the franchises may be established, after taking approval from the concerned District Magistrates. In the case of the petitioner also, the society is not functioning effectively and by the sale of the manure, sale centre of the Society will not be affected. In the case of the petitioner also, the society is not functioning effectively and by the sale of the manure, sale centre of the Society will not be affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Daulat Ram Gupta, Civil Appeal; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2339 of 2002 and other connected Appeals, reported in 2002 Law Suit (SC) 386, to support his submissions. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, it appears that the respondent No. 3 has taken a decision not to issue a license to the petitioner to open a shop for distribution of manure on the ground that there is a sale centre of the Society in the year, though the distance of the place of the proposed shop and the sale centre of the society is 3.5 Kilometers, therefore, the sale of the sale centre of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti is not going to be affected by the shop of the petitioner and as such the impugned order does not appear to be justified at all. In paragraph 17 of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of State of U.P. v. Daulat Ram Gupta (supra), has held that the Statutory Order neither expressly nor by necessary implications prohibit the grant of license to a person or refusal to renew such a licence if the place of business of such licensee falls within the radius of 5 kms of a Government run retail outlet. 6. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9th September, 2009 is quashed. Now, it is for the respondent-authority to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh, which the petitioner is directed to file within a month from today and the respondent-authority is directed to decide the same, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within another period of three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner.