Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 683 (ALL)

Jeetu Pal v. State Of U. P.

2022-05-04

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Bakhteyar Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and; Shri Shakeel Ahmad Azmi, learned counsel for respondent no.6. 2. Presently, challenge has been raised by the petitioners to the selection of respondent no.6/Smt. Meena Devi as fair price shop agent for Gram Panchayat Lahar, Barkula, Soraon, vide selection reached through secret ballot cast on 24.10.2017. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is three fold. First, it has been submitted, the Government Order dated 17.08.2002 clearly lays down the procedure for making selection of fair price shop agent. It mandates selection at open meeting of the Gram Panchayat. Then, it also provides, in case of any disputes, the matter may be referred to the next higher authority. Circumventing the aforesaid procedure, in the present case, purely on account of political pressure exercised by the then sitting M.L.A., who had written letter to the District Magistrate, Kasganj, dated 07.10.2017 and acting solely on his dictates, the District Magistrate issued instructions resulting in conduct of selection through secret ballot. Further, no reference was sought or made to the next higher officer. 4. Disputing the above contention, it has been strenuously urged by learned counsel for respondent no.6, the petitioners had participated in the selection process. Merely because they were declared unsuccessful, they may have no right to challenge the proceeding. If at all, the petitioners should have raised the challenge to the selection sought to be made through secret ballot, at the relevant time. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it cannot be denied, the Government Order contains a general government policy for allotment of fair price shop agency. It also cannot be denied, as a possibility, in certain circumstances, the government policy may have to be adapted to serve the basic purpose of making appointment of a fair price shop agent according to the majority view of the Gram Panchayat. 6. In the present case, the local M.L.A. wrote to the District Magistrate underlining the need to conduct the selection process through secret ballot. Acting on that, the District Magistrate appears to have written to the S.D.M., Kasganj, on 07.10.2017 itself vide communication no. 945/ST, to conduct the selection through secret ballot. Also, direction was issued to conduct the aforesaid proceeding at primary school building. Acting on that, the District Magistrate appears to have written to the S.D.M., Kasganj, on 07.10.2017 itself vide communication no. 945/ST, to conduct the selection through secret ballot. Also, direction was issued to conduct the aforesaid proceeding at primary school building. Though the communication issued by District Magistrate is not on record, however, further communication issued by S.D.M. dated 10.10.2017 is annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 7. In response thereto, the petitioner appears to have written to the District Magistrate, Kasganj, on 12.10.2017 asking for more polling booths to be set up. Remarkably, at that stage, the petitioner did not challenge the proposed selection through secret ballot. In any case, the selection process was held on 24.10.2017. 8. Similar communications were also written by the petitioners to the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh, and Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of U.P., both dated 14.10.2017. 9. As to the total valid votes cast, the petitioner no.1/Jeetu Pal got 622 votes whereas respondent no.6/Smt. Meena Devi got 816 votes. Third candidate Pushpendra Kumar (petitioner no.2) got 405 votes. It is in such circumstance, the selection of respondent no.6 came to be made. 10. Thus, challenge raised to the selection process on account of violation of Government Order is found to be belated and such as may never be successfully pressed by the petitioners who had participated in the selection process without raising challenge at the relevant time and without raising any objection to the procedure of secret ballot, at the relevant time. 11. As to the further challenge raised, of the District Magistrate having acted on the dictates of the M.L.A., again, that challenge is found to be wholly untenable. At present, in absence of communication of the District Magistrate issued to the S.D.M. dated 07.10.2017 (requiring the conduct of the selection process through secret ballot), it is difficult to reach any conclusion in favour of the petitioners. 12. In the entirety of the circumstances noted above, no good ground is made to offer any interference in exercise of any extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India as each and every error that may creep in an administrative exercise, may not be rectified or cured by issuance of writ, by this Court. 13. The selection of respondent no.6 is found to have been made fairly. 13. The selection of respondent no.6 is found to have been made fairly. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. They had participated in the selection process, without any objection. Merely because they were not successful, no prejudice may be claimed especially when no defect is shown in the conduct of secret ballot. 14. In view of the above, present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. It is expected, the respondent authorities shall now necessarily conclude the selection process in favour of the respondent no.6 within a period of two weeks from today.