Back
2020 Supreme(All) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Smt. Jasoda - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. 30085 of 2018
Decided On : 28-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shravan Kumar Mishra
Point of law:
In a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 an applicant should ordinarily be one who has & personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Fair Price Shop – Opening of – By means of present petition, petitioner has challenged order rejecting petitioner’s application/representation for opening of an additional fair price shop in Gram Panchyat – Prayer has also been made to direct respondents to pass fresh order after taking a fresh report from Block-Jaitpur regarding present population and number of units with further direction to respondents that if population as well as number of units are more than 20,000 at present, to permit petitioner to distribute food grains after adjusting number of units of all fair price shop keepers – Held, Court finds that even if there is some difference in number of units as mentioned in counter affidavit and in impugned order, still number of units is less than 20000 – There being already five fair price shops, on ground of such difference as pointed out by petitioner’s counsel, there would be no requirement of sixth shop as per Government Order – Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will not pass an order directing respondents to make a roving inquiry for making fresh determination of number of units considering alleged increase of population for opening of a fair price shop for the petitioner who has no legal or fundamental right for engagement as an agent –Court do not find any merit in writ petition – Petition Dismissed (Paras 32, 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
Present case are that initially one fair price shop in Gram Panchyat Jaitpur was granted to Pratap Kumar which was cancelled by order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kulpahar, District Mahoba. Thereafter the said fair price shop was allotted to the petitioner by order dated 4.5.2017 (Annexure No.2) after passing of the resolution dated 24.4.2017 in the open meeting in petitioner’s favour. The petitioner did not commit any irregularity in distribution of essential commodities and there were no complaints against her.
Findings of the court:
Court finds that even if there is some difference in number of units as mentioned in counter affidavit and in impugned order, still number of units is less than 20000 – There being already five fair price shops, on ground of such difference as pointed out by petitioner’s counsel, there would be no requirement of sixth shop as per Government Order – Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will not pass an order directing respondents to make a roving inquiry for making fresh determination of number of units considering alleged increase of population for opening of a fair price shop for the petitioner who has no legal or fundamental right for engagement as an agent –Court do not find any merit in writ petition.
Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order bearing No. 705 ft0iw0v0@ek0m0U;k0@2017 dated 5.12.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Mahoba, District Mahoba (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) rejecting the petitioner’s application/representation dated 7.11.2017 for opening of an additional fair price shop in Gram Panchyat, Jaitpur, District Mahoba. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to pass fresh order after taking a fresh report from Block-Jaitpur regarding present population and the number of units with further direction to the respondents that if the population as well as number of units are more than 20,000 at present, to permit the petitioner to distribute the food grains after adjusting the number of units of all fair price shop keepers.
3. The facts of the present case are that initially one fair price shop in Gram Panchyat Jaitpur was granted to Pratap Kumar which was cancelled by order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kulpahar, District Mahoba. Thereafter the said fair price shop was allotted to the petitioner by order dated 4.5.2017 (Annexure No.2) after passing of the resolution dated 24.4.2017 in the open meeting in petitioner’s favour. The petitioner did not commit any irregularity in distribution of essential commodities and there were no complaints against her.
4. Pratap Kumar filed Writ C No. 32931 of 2017 (Pratap Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) against the order of cancellation dated 7.1.2017 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.7.2017 (Annexure No.3) whereby the order dated 7.1.2017 was quashed and the respondents were directed to restore the licence of the petitioner therein/Pratap Kumar and to resume supply to his shop forthwith. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kulpahar by order dated 18.9.2017 restored the allotment of the fair price shop of Pratap Kumar in compliance of the order of this Court dated 31.7.2017 and by the same order the allotment which was made in favour of Smt. Jasoda Devi (present petitioner) on 15.5.2017 was also stayed till further orders. The present petitioner thereafter filed Writ C No. 49901 of 2017 (Smt. Jasoda Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) in which this Court passed the order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-5.), without entering into the merits of the order dated 18.9.2017, directing the District Magistrate to decide the representation of the petitioner filed against the order dated 18.9.2017.
5. The petitioner thereafter filed representation dated 7.11.2017 before the District-Magistrate, District-Mahoba, (Annexure No.6), for opening of an additional fair price shop (6th shop) and to restore the supply of the essential commodities to her after allocation of equal units to all the fair price shops. This representation of the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate-Mahoba by means of the order dated 5.12.2017 (Annexure No.7), under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. This petition was filed on 31.8.2018. This Court by order dated 5.9.2018 granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit. The petitioner was granted time to file rejoinder affidavit. It was made clear that the question of laches shall remain open.
7. The learned Standing Counsel filed counter affidavit and raised a plea in paragraph 13 thereof that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay. However, at the time of hearing the learned Standing Counsel did not press the plea of laches and submitted that the matter may be heard on merits.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is some delay in filing writ petition but the same was caused as the petitioner was trying to collect some documents about the existing population of Gram Panchyat-Jaitpur and to ascertain at what ratio the population in the concer
