Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 622 (JK)

Rukhsana Jabeen v. State of J&K

2020-11-25

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2020
Judgment Rajnesh Oswal, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “a) Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by respondent No. 1 as also order dated 28.09.2017 passed by respondent No. 2. b) Writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to allot the Fair Price Shop at Wasoora-B District Pulwama in favour of the petitioner as being fully eligible as per the guidelines. c) Writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a detailed report before this Court with regard to distance between the existing and new Fair Price Shop allotted in favour of respondent No. 6 and whether the same is accordance with guidelines of 2016.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that a fair price shop was sanctioned for the village of the petitioner, namely, Wasoora-B and the petitioner claiming herself to be eligible for allotment of the said fair price shop, applied for the same in the appropriate format, her application was forwarded by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4 along with all documents submitted by her. Instead of allotting the fair price shop to her, the respondent No. 1 allotted the fair price shop in favour of respondent No. 6 by virtue of Government order No. FCS&CA/FPS/123/2017 dated 22.09.2017. The petitioner further claims that she made various representations for rectification of the mistake by the official respondents but to no avail. Hence, she has challenged the allotment of fair price shop in favour of the respondent No. 6 by way of present petition. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the proposed fair price shop that has been sanctioned in favour of the private respondent i.e. respondent No. 6 was barely 200 meters away from the existing fair price shop and as such, there is violation of the guidelines prescribed for the minimum distance of one kilometer between the new and the existing fair price shop, so on this ground alone the allotment in favour of respondent No. 6 is required to be cancelled. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 has not applied for the fair price shop in proper format and has not enclosed requisite documents along with his application. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 has not applied for the fair price shop in proper format and has not enclosed requisite documents along with his application. The petitioner has placed on record application form, Permanent Residence Certificate and recommendations made by the Assistant Director, FCS & CA Department, Pulwama to the Deputy Director Planning FCS&CA Srinagar along with other documents. The petitioner has also placed much reliance upon the spot verification made by the Tehsil Supply Officer CAPD Circle Tahab. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed the objections, in which they have categorically stated that as the respondent No. 6 was found eligible so the fair price shop for village, Wasoora was allotted to him. It is also pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 do not hail from one and the same village as the petitioner is of resident of Palpora Shahoora and the respondent No. 6 is the resident of village Wasoora as per his Permanent Resident Certificate. It is further stated that although two villages fall within the radius of 1.5 Km, but they are different villages and approved location is only for one village i.e. Wasoora as per the Government Order No. 127-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 04.08.2016 read with Government Order No.137-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 02.09.2016 for opening of fair price shops under targeted Public Distribution System. The respondent No. 6 has also filed objections and has stated that the petitioner does not belong to the village for which the fair price shop has been sanctioned and it is the respondent No. 6 who is the resident of village Wasoora. He has further stated that the respondent No. 6 is higher in merit than the petitioner. In response to the objections filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the petitioner has stated that no doubt the petitioner is a resident of village Palpora Shahura but as per orders and scheme devised by the official respondents, the residents of Palpora have been attached to the fair price shop of Wasoora and the residents of village Palpora are getting their ration from the fair price shop of village, Wasoora. Besides that the petitioner has taken a plea that specific grounds in the petition have not been replied by the respondents. 5. Besides that the petitioner has taken a plea that specific grounds in the petition have not been replied by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same grounds which he has taken in the petition and has argued that the village Palpora falls within Wasoora as the residents of the village Palpora are getting the ration from the fair price shop stationed at village Wasoora and as such the petitioner was eligible for allotment of fair price shop. He has vehemently argued that the report of the Tehsil Supply Officer dated 14.12.2016 fully supports the case of the petitioner and she is entitled to allotment of the fair price shop. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Sheikh Feroz, learned Dy. A. G. appearing for the official respondents argued that both the villages are the different and the fair price shop was rightly allotted to respondent No. 6 as he was fully qualified as per the mandate of guidelines fixed for the allotment of fair price shops. 7. Mr. N. A. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has also reiterated and supported the assertions made by Mr. Sheikh Feroz and has raised a preliminary objections that the petitioner is not the resident of Village Wasoora but Palpora Shahura as per her PRC. 8. Heard and considered and I have meticulously perused the record that has been placed on record by both the parties. 9. From the record, regarding the details of proposed new fair price shops, it is evident that one sale center was already functioning at village, Wasoora and another sale center was proposed to be established at Wasoora-B. 10. The perusal of the application form that has been placed on record by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner at serial No. 4 in her application form has specifically mentioned as the location of fair price shop for which the petitioner has applied for, as Palpora and also she has shown her address as Palpora at serial No.3. From the perusal of the Permanent Residence Certificate of the petitioner also, it is evident that she is the resident of Palapora, Shahoora, District, Pulwama. Even the report submitted by the Tehsil Supply Officer dated 14.12.2016, on which the learned counsel has placed much reliance, reveals that the spot verification was conducted for opening of fair price shop at village, Palapora. Even the report submitted by the Tehsil Supply Officer dated 14.12.2016, on which the learned counsel has placed much reliance, reveals that the spot verification was conducted for opening of fair price shop at village, Palapora. It is admitted fact that the location of the proposed fair price shop is at Wasoora and not at Palpora. The residents of Village Palpora may have been getting ration from fair price shop at Wasoora as is evident from the report of Tehsil Supply Officer but it does not mean that the proposed shop for Wasoora is meant for Palpora. 11. From the response filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, it is also evident that the Palapora and Wasoora are two separate villages and the petitioner is a resident of Palapora Shahoora and one of the conditions for allotment of the fair price shop that the candidate should be a local youth of the village/area and the petitioner not being the resident of the same village Wasoora, has no right to throw the challenge to the allotment of fair price shop in favour of the respondent No. 6 as she is the resident of different village Palpora. Even the petitioner in his response to the reply filed by the official respondents, has admitted that the village Palapora Shahoora is a separate village and the residents of Palpora are getting their ration from the fair price shop situated at Wasoora. Merely getting ration from the fair price shop situated at Wasoora would not entitle the petitioner to seek allotment of fair price shop at Wasoora. Similarly, being resident of another village i.e. Palapora Shahoora, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of fair price shop in farour of the private respondent by the official respondents. 12. For all what has been stated above, this petition has no merit, as such, the same is dismissed. Interim directions shall also stand vacated.