Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 274 (ALL)

Mangali Yadav v. State of U. P.

2017-01-19

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Sri Subhash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that an open meeting of Village Panchayat Peethapur, Block Sadar, District Ghazipur was convened on 19.09.2016 for selection of a fair price shop agent. A resolution of the village Panchayat was passed in favour of respondent no. 6 who secured 427 votes as against the other two contestants namely the petitioner who secure 410 votes and one Sri Ram Chandra Singh who secured merely two votes. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the real brother of Village Pradhan. After the resolution was passed, as aforesaid, she and the Village Pradhan started raising objections and created obstruction in appointment of fair price shop agent. Petitioner earlier filed Writ-C No. 53200 of 2016 (Smt. Mangali Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors) which was disposed of vide order dated 08.11.2016 as under: "Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, along with Navneet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the gaon sabha. In substance, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by non-disposal of his application dated 19.9.2016 made before the Block Development Officer, Sadar, District - Ghazipur (respondent no. 3) for holding meeting of the gaon sabha for appointment of fair price shop agent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the respondent no. 2 along with the certified copy of the order of this Court. In case such application is filed and the shop in question is vacant, needful be done by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned expeditiously in accordance with law by passing a reasoned speaking order, but not later than two months from the date of filing of such application." 4. It also appears that the respondent no. 6 had also filed a Writ-C No. 49794 of 2016 (Pramod Singh Yadav Vs. It also appears that the respondent no. 6 had also filed a Writ-C No. 49794 of 2016 (Pramod Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors) which was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2016 as under: "Heard Sri Subhash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. In substance, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by inaction of the Sub Divisional Officer / the Committee headed by him in acting upon the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 19.9.2016 for appointment of fair price shop agent in favour of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Sub Divisional Officer / the Committee headed by him under para 5 of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 to proceed in accordance with law and take a suitable decision on the resolution of the gaon sabha dated 19.9.2016 expeditiously, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court." 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the writ petition of respondent no. 6, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ghazipur issued notice no. 1089 dated 16.10.2016 requiring the petitioner, the respondent no. 6, the other contestants Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, Village Pradhan Sri Ram Adhar and the concerned officers to appear and make their submissions so that the matter may be disposed of in compliance to the order of High Court. 6. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted an application dated 11.11.2016 before the respondent no. 3 stating therein as under: %hnd1%^^bl lanHkZ esa Jheku dks voxr djkuk gS fd izkfFkZuh }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa mDr fjV ;kfpdk nk;j dj [kqyh cSBd djkus dk vkns'k izkIr dj fy;k gS] ftldh iDdh udy bl vuqjks/k ds lkFk layXu dj izLrqr dj jgh gWw fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-11-2016 ds vuqikyu esa [kqyh cSBd djkdj mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkoaVu ds lEcU/k esa fu"i{k dk;Zokgh djkus dh d`ik dh tk;sA^^ %hnd2% 7. From the aforesaid application of the petitioner, it is evident that she tried to mislead the authorities by making false averments in the application that she has obtained an order of the High Court for reconvening an open meeting of Gram Sabha, whereas, no such order was passed by this Court on 08.11.2016 in Writ C No. 53200 of 2016. 8. It appears that the matter was examined by the Tehsil Level Committee consisting of four officers namely the Supply Inspector, Sadar; Sahayak Sevayojan Adhikari; Block Development Officer, Sadar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ghazipur and a reasoned decision dated 02.01.2017 was taken. 9. The aforesaid Tehsil Level Committee recorded clear findings of fact that when the Village Pradhan could not succeed to get selected the petitioner in the open meeting of Village Panchayat then he started raising objection against the resolution. 10. A letter was also written by one Sri Ram Chandra Singh Yadav to the Chief Minister of State of the Uttar Pradesh for his appointment as fair price shop agent. The said letter was endorsed and sent to the concerned authority for consideration. After discussing the facts in detail, the aforesaid Tehsil Level Committee came to the conclusion that the resolution dated 19.09.2016 of the Village Panchayat in question was passed in accordance with law in which name of respondent no. 6 was proposed for appointment of fair price shop agent and consequently the Committee decided to allot the fair price shop to the aforesaid respondent no. 6. 11. Perusal of the impugned order of the Tehsil Level Committee dated 02.01.2017 shows that it has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant facts and material on record. 12. Fair price shops in the Village Panchayats have been established by the Government for public distribution of essential commodities to villagers particularly the most needy and economically weaker section of the society but at the instance of the petitioner and the Village Pradhan who is real brother of the husband of the petitioner, every efforts have been made to obstruct the opening of fair price shop unless it is allotted to her. Such an approach of the petitioner deserves to be condemned and such practices to create obstruction in opening of a fair price shop in the village, deserves to be discouraged by imposing costs. 13. Such an approach of the petitioner deserves to be condemned and such practices to create obstruction in opening of a fair price shop in the village, deserves to be discouraged by imposing costs. 13. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a month from today with Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad. If the cost is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned and the same shall be deposited with the Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad.