Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 444 (ALL)

Rekha Devi v. State of U. P.

2017-02-07

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that initially a meeting of Village Panchayat Mohammadpur, Block Bhadpura, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly was convened on 30.08.2016 for selection of a fair price shop agent. In the said meeting, the petitioner and some other persons contested but no resolution could be passed as evident from the copy of the proceeding register filed as Annexure-1. On 31.08.2016, some villagers moved an application before the respondent no.2 bringing to his notice that no selection could be made in the open meeting of the Village Panchayat on 30.08.2016. The respondent no.2 considered the matter and directed the concerned officer of the Food and Supply Department, Nawabganj and the Khand Vikas Adhikari for inquiry, who submitted their report on 02.09.2016. After considering the report, the respondent no.2 passed an order dated 03.09.2016 directing for convening an open meeting of the Village Panchayat. In the circumstances, the respondent no.2 issued a letter dated 20.09.2016 directing the Khand Vikas Adhikari to convene an open meeting of the Village Panchayat on 06.10.2016 after due circulation of the agenda for selection of a fair price shop agent. He also directed the S.H.O. of the police station concerned to make arrangement of sufficient police force on the date of the meeting, so that meeting may be peacefully organised. Copy of this order was also given to the Village Pradhan. 3. In compliance of the aforesaid order of the respondent no.2, an open meeting of the Village Panchayat was convened on 06.10.2016. The petitioner was well aware of this meeting as evident from his own letter dated 05.10.2016 addressed to the respondent no.2 in which he objected to the open meeting of the Village Panchayat on the ground that a meeting was held on 30.08.2016. Copy of this letter has been produced by the learned standing counsel alongwith instructions of the respondent no.2. The meeting was held on 06.10.2016, in which proposal was passed in favour of the respondent no.5, who secured highest vote i.e. 359 votes. In the meeting on 25.10.2016, the Tehsil Level Committee approved the selection of the respondent no.5 as proposed by the resolution of the Village Panchayat. The meeting was held on 06.10.2016, in which proposal was passed in favour of the respondent no.5, who secured highest vote i.e. 359 votes. In the meeting on 25.10.2016, the Tehsil Level Committee approved the selection of the respondent no.5 as proposed by the resolution of the Village Panchayat. Consequently, an allotment of the fair price shop was made by order dated 04.11.2016 in favour of the respondent no.5. 4. However, the petitioner filed a Writ C No.52600 of 2016 challenging the order dated 03.09.2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 04.11.2016 directing the petitioner to move an application for recall of the order dated 03.09.2016 before the respondent no.2. It appears that the fact of decision of the Tehsil Level Committee dated 25.10.2016 and the order of allotment dated 04.11.2016 were not brought to the notice of the Court in the said writ petition. 5. Now, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 disposing of the application of the petitioner in compliance to the order date 04.11.2016 passed by this Court in Writ C No.52600 of 2016. 6. In the impugned order, the respondent no.2 has recorded a finding of fact that no resolution could be finally passed in the open meeting of the Village Panchayat convened on 30.08.2016 and thereafter, a valid meeting was convened on 06.10.2016 after circulation of notice and agenda in the village. The Village Pradhan as well as the petitioner were also having knowledge of the aforesaid meeting convened on 06.10.2016. The petitioner has himself moved an application on 05.10.2016 objecting to the said meeting on the ground that a meeting was held on 30.08.2016. Thus, it is evident that the meeting dated 06.10.2016 was convened after due notice. The petitioner has not filed his candidature in the open meeting convened on 06.10.2016, although he was having information/notice of the said meeting. In the aforesaid meeting, the respondent no.5 secured highest vote i.e. 359 votes and accordingly, the Village Panchayat passed a resolution selecting his name for appointment as fair price shop agent. The Tehsil Level Committee in its meeting held on 25.10.2016, has approved the aforesaid resolution dated 06.10.2016 .Thereafter, the respondent no.2 issued an order of allotment dated 04.11.2016 of the fair price shop in question in favour of the respondent no.5. The Tehsil Level Committee in its meeting held on 25.10.2016, has approved the aforesaid resolution dated 06.10.2016 .Thereafter, the respondent no.2 issued an order of allotment dated 04.11.2016 of the fair price shop in question in favour of the respondent no.5. The order of allotment has not been challenged by the petitioner, 7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The order of allotment dated 04.11.2016 has not been challenged by the petitioner. Even the Village Panchayat has not challenged the order of allotment dated 04.11.2016 issued by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.5. Consequently, I do not find any good reason to interfere in the matter. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and, is hereby, dismissed.