SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 1958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Amarjeet Gupta - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 5 Others - Respondents
WRIT C No.17669 of 2018
Decided on : 14-09-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sanjay Pathak
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Manvendra Kumar Yadav, Tariq Maqbool Khan

The main legal principle established in the judgment is the automatic and immediate disqualification of certain family members of the village pradhan from being appointed as fair price shop dealers, as provided under the Government Orders dated 3.7.1990 and 18.7.2002, to ensure transparency and impartiality in the appointment process.

Headnote:

Fair Price Shop Dealer - Appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer - Government Order dated 3.7.1990, Government Order dated 18.7.2002 - The judgment discussed the disqualifications provided under the Government Orders dated 3.7.1990 and 18.7.2002, highlighting the automatic and immediate disqualification of certain family members of the village pradhan from being appointed as fair price shop dealers. It emphasized the importance of transparency and impartiality in the appointment process to shield the public distribution system from private interests and political pressures.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the appointment of the respondent No.6 as the fair price shop dealer, citing the respondent's relationship with the sitting village pradhan. The appointment was governed by the Government Orders dated 3.7.1990 and 18.7.2002, which disqualified certain family members of the village pradhan from being appointed as fair price shop dealers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent No.6, being the real brother of the sitting village pradhan, incurred an automatic and immediate disqualification from being appointed as the fair price shop dealer, regardless of living separately from his brother. The court held that the order upholding the appointment of respondent No.6 was arbitrary and illegal.

Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the respondent No.6, as the real brother of the sitting village pradhan, to be appointed as the fair price shop dealer, in light of the disqualifications provided under the Government Orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Government Orders dated 3.7.1990 and 18.7.2002, emphasizing the automatic and immediate disqualification of certain family members of the village pradhan from being appointed as fair price shop dealers, irrespective of their living arrangements.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings for the appointment of a new fair price shop dealer in accordance with the law, with a direction to complete the process within four months.

JUDGMENT :

1. There is a village panchayat of Shivpur Mathiya, District-Kushinagar. The respondent No.6 was appointed as the fair price shop dealer of the aforesaid village panchayat. The petitioner initially challenged the appointment of the respondent No.6, Mukesh Vishwakarma, as the fair price shop dealer of the said village panchayat by instituting, a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was registered as Writ-C No.6050 of 2018. The writ petition was finally decided by judgment and order dated 15.2.2018 rendered by this Court. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

“Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Licensing Authority to place the objections made by the petitioner before Tehsil Level Selection Committee at the time of consideration of such proposal made in favour of the respondent no. 6 and appropriate order be passed thereon within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.”

2. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted the objection before the competent authority. The competent authority rejected the objection and upheld the appointment of the said respondent No.6, Mukesh Vishwakarma by order dated 27.3.2018.

3. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 27.3.2018 passed by the respondent No.2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Kaptanganj, District-Kushinagar in the instant writ petition.

4. The submission of Shri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.6 is the real brother of the sitting village pradhan. He is not eligible to be appointed as the fair price shop dealer of the aforesaid village pradhan. The appointment of the petitioner is in the teeth of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990. He relies on a full bench judgment of this Court entered in the case of Indra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported at 2013 (10) ADJ 612.

5. Shri Manvendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent No.6 is admittedly the brother of the sitting village pradhan of the aforesaid village panchayat. However, the respondent No.6 resides in a separate house. He does not share the kitchen with the sitting village pradhan. The respondent No.6 is eligible to be appointed the fair price shop dealer.

6. Sri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel has appeared for the State.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With consent of parties the matter is being disposed of finally.

8. Certain facts relevant for judgment in the controversy are established beyond the pale of dispute. An open meeting of the village panchayat, Shivpur Mathiya, District-Kushinagar held on 15.12.2017 recommended the name of respondent No.6, Mukesh Vishwakarma for appointment as the fair price shop dealer of the said village panchayat. The petitioner made a complaint against the appointment of the said respondent No.6 as the fair price shop dealer. An enquiry was caused to be conducted into the said complaint. The enquiry found that the brother of the respondent No.6 is the sitting gram pradhan of village panchayat, Shivpur Mathiya, District-Kushinagar. However, the respondent No.6 and his brother, who is the sitting gram pradhan, live separately. It is recorded that they eat out of different kitchens maintained by them separately. The objections to the appointment of the respondent No.6 were rejected by the order dated 27.3.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Kaptanganj, District-Kushinagar. The order dated 27.3.2018 also directed the completion of all formalities for appointment of the respondent No.6 as the fair price shop dealer of the said village panchayat on the foot of the resolution passed by the village panchayat on 15.12.2017.

9. The appointment of the fair price shop dealer of the village panchayat is governed and regulated by the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 and the Government Order dat




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top