Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 536 (ALL)

Dinesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2017-02-14

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent no.6. 2. Briefly state, facts of the present case are that father of the respondent no.7 was a fair price shop agent of Village Panchayat Paaun, Kshetra Panchayat Kudraha, District Basti, who died on 26.09.2016. After his death, the respondent no.7 applied for being appointed as a fair price shop agent on compassionate ground in terms of Clause 10-Jha of the Government Order, dated 17.8.2002. To consider his candidature, by letter no.133 dated 03.08.2016; the respondent no.3 directed the respondent no.5 to take appropriate steps for selection of fair price shop agent. The respondent no.5 (Khand Vikas Adhikari) directed to convene an open meeting of the Village Panchayat. Thereupon, an open meeting of the Village Panchayat was convened under the chairmanship of the Village Pradhan, but two groups started raising disputes and as such no resolution could be passed in the meeting. The respondent no.5 submitted his report dated 29.08.2016 alongwith incomplete resolution of Village Panchayat and application of the Gram Sachiv that on reconvening the meeting, there is possibility of some untoward incident and therefore, selection/appointment may be made by the authority. Under the circumstances, the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 08.10.2016, called for a report from the District Supply Officer i.e. respondent no.4 who submitted his report dated 19.12.2016 that the general reputation of the deceased fair price shop agent may be verified and thereafter, allotment may be made. The respondent no.3 found that the shop of the deceased agent, was never suspended and merely at one point of time by order dated 19.05.2016, a warning was issued to him and security money of Rs.2000/- was forfeited. He also perused various affidavits of members of family of the respondent no.7, character certificates issued by the Superintendent of Police, Basti and Zila Panchayat, Kudraha and about five hundred affidavits of residents/card holders of the Village Panchayat in question which facts have not been disputed by the petitioner. 3. Considering all these evidences on record, the Tehsil Level Committee unanimously took decision on 02.01.2017 to appoint the respondent no.7 as fair price shop agent. On these facts and considering the materials on record, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order appointing the respondent no.7 as fair price shop agent. 4. 3. Considering all these evidences on record, the Tehsil Level Committee unanimously took decision on 02.01.2017 to appoint the respondent no.7 as fair price shop agent. On these facts and considering the materials on record, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order appointing the respondent no.7 as fair price shop agent. 4. It appears from the records of the writ petition that after the respondent no.7 was appointed as fair price shop agent, the Village Pradhan moved an application dated 11.01.2017 before the District Magistrate, Basti making certain allegations and requesting to reconvene the meeting. However, the Land Management Committee of the Village Panchayat in question has not challenged the appointment of the respondent no.7 as fair price shop agent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the respondent no.7 has a criminal history and against him, F.I.R. was also lodged. The allegation that the respondent no.7 has criminal history, is not based on any material and on the contrary, a character certificate was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Basti which was considered by the Tehsil Level Committee while taking decision dated 02.01.2017. So far as the allegation of F.I.R. is concerned, it appears from perusal of F.I.R. filed as Annexure-6 that the F.I.R. was lodged on 02.01.2017 for an alleged incident dated 20.02.2016. This F.I.R. appears to have been lodged by one Smt. Rinki Devi against one Sri Pappu which was directed to be registered by order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 6. The petitioner claims to be resident of the Village Panchayat in question and has alleged in paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the writ petition that father of the respondent no.7 was not distributing essential commodities properly and regularly and used to misbehave with the ration card holders. The allegation so made are vague and not even supported by any complaint of the card holders. The only complaint which has been filed by the petitioners alongwith the writ petition is the complaint of the Village Pradhan which is against the allotment in favour of the respondent no.7. The representation dated 02.12.2016 filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, is without any proof of its submission. Even in this representation, the petitioners have alleged that the allotment has been made without the knowledge of the Village Pradhan and, therefore, a meeting of the Village Panchayat be held. 7. The representation dated 02.12.2016 filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, is without any proof of its submission. Even in this representation, the petitioners have alleged that the allotment has been made without the knowledge of the Village Pradhan and, therefore, a meeting of the Village Panchayat be held. 7. It is relevant to observe that in the case of Ashfaq Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ADJ 416 , this Court held in para 7 and 8 as under; "7.The scheme of the UP Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order 2004 makes a person living below poverty line entitled to specified quantity of the scheduled commodities in respect of each category of the card on a price to be fixed by the State Government. Any person, aggrieved by the order of the food officer or the designated authority refusing to issue or renew of the ration card, may appeal to the appellate authority. This right cannot be extended to challenge the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or the appellate authority in the matter of suspension or cancellation of the agreement of fair price shop. 8. A person, holding a ration card, is a consumer of the scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution Scheme, if he is not distributed the scheduled commodities according to his entitlement at a fair price, he may make a complaint to the food officer. The food officer is required to take an action on such complaint in accordance with the agreement with the authorised agent under clause 25 of the control order. The ration card holder is not an adversary or the controller of the scheme of distribution of scheduled commodities to the poor persons. He does not have right to either appeal against the order of suspension or cancellation of an authorisation or to file a writ petition challenging the order by which the Commissioner or the Food Commissioner, as the case may be, has allowed the appeal or has remanded the same for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. As a consumer, his rights cannot be raised to the status of choosing a dealer or to seek the cancellation of the licence of the dealer. His right is confine, to his entitlement of the scheduled commodities at specified price." 8. As a consumer, his rights cannot be raised to the status of choosing a dealer or to seek the cancellation of the licence of the dealer. His right is confine, to his entitlement of the scheduled commodities at specified price." 8. Although, there is no allegation in the writ petition that the petitioners are card holders still it is important to note that no material has been brought by them on record indicating their grievance against the deceased fair price shop agent with respect to non distribution or any illegality in distribution of essential commodities. The Village Panchayat has not challenged the order of allotment of the fair price shop to the respondent no.7. 9. On over all consideration of the peculiar facts of the case as briefly noted above, I do not find any good reason to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Consequently, writ petition fails and ,is hereby, dismissed.