Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 646 (ALL)

DEEP CHANDRA YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-28

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the Gram Sabha. 2. Petitioner claims to be ration card holder and resident of village panchayat Hariharpur, Vikas Khand - Saidabad, Tehsil - Handia, District - Allahabad. He is an advocate by profession and has filed this writ petition praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the allotment dated 10.1.2017 of fair price shop agency of the respondent No. 4. 3. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that publicity of the meeting was made by beat of drums on 13.5.2016 and the meeting was held on 14.5.2016 which was heavily opposed by the villagers. In paragraph 7 he has alleged that the village panchayat has committed forgery. In paragraph 8 he has stated that he is a social worker of the village and despite application made by him no heed has been paid upon his grievance. In paragraph 10 he has stated that the respondents have completed all the formalities for running fair price shop and the same was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 4 which is against the terms and conditions. In paragraph 11 he has stated that he made an application on 1.6.2016 requesting to cancel the proposal of the village panchayat which is a waste paper and against the wishes of people of the village and thus the proposal is illegal. Several other allegations have also been made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no Munadi for the meeting and as such the State respondents have committed manifest illegality in accepting the proposal of the village panchayat. 5. Learned standing counsel submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are self contradictory. Meeting was validly held in which villagers participated and a resolution was lawfully passed by the village panchayat which has been accepted by the competent authority and accordingly the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as fair price shop agent. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Meeting was validly held in which villagers participated and a resolution was lawfully passed by the village panchayat which has been accepted by the competent authority and accordingly the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as fair price shop agent. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. I find that as per own averments of the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, publicity of the meeting of the village panchayat to be convened on 14.5.2016, was made in the village panchayat by beat of drums through one Sri Sunder Lal. The allegation of the petitioner that beat of drum was made only on 13.5.2016 is not supported by any evidence. Perusal of the resolution of the village panchayat shows that large number of villagers have participated in the meeting and it was unanimously resolved to appoint the respondent No. 4 as fair price shop agent. The resolution bears signature of villagers, the Village Pradhan and the Gram Vikas Adhikari. Thus there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the meeting was not held on 14.5.2016. Record as well as own admission of the petitioner in various paragraph of the writ petition itself clearly shows that meeting of the Village Panchayat was convened for 14.5.2016 and it was held on that date and a resolution was passed proposing the name of respondent No. 4 as fair price shop agent. From the impugned order dated 10.1.2017, it appears that a meeting of the Tehsil Level Committee was convened on 4.10.2016 in which the proposal of the village panchayat dated 14.5.2016 was approved. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 10.1.2017 appointing the respondent No. 4 as fair price shop agent of village panchayat in question. From own averments of the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is evident that after completion of entire formalities, the fair price shop in question was allotted to the respondent No. 4. 8. The petitioner being a ration card holder, is a consumer of the scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution Scheme and is entitled to get the essential commodities in prescribed quantity and at specified rates. He may raise his grievance only if essential commodities are not so distributed to him by the fair price shop agent. 8. The petitioner being a ration card holder, is a consumer of the scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution Scheme and is entitled to get the essential commodities in prescribed quantity and at specified rates. He may raise his grievance only if essential commodities are not so distributed to him by the fair price shop agent. He cannot act as an adversary or the controller of the scheme of distribution of scheduled commodities to the poor persons. He does not have right either to appeal against the order of suspension or cancellation or allotment of a fair price shop agency or to file a writ petition challenging the order of allotment. As a consumer the rights of the petitioner cannot be raised to the status of choosing a dealer or to seek the cancellation of fair price shop agreement of such a dealer, namely, the respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition. The rights of the petitioner as consumer/ration card holder are confined to his entitlement of the scheduled commodities at the prescribed rates. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in this writ petition. 10. Writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed.