Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32066 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Anandi Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Pratap Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the allotment of fair price shop to the respondent no.5 on 12.09.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is illegal, as there was already an interim order operating in favour of one Yad Ram, the original allottee, vide order dated 01.09.2009 passed by this Court in Writ C No.46058 of 2009 which was disposed of only on 08.07.2014. Therefore, the allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent no.5 is absolutely illegal.
Learned counsel further submits that on similar grounds, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 05.11.2012, during pendency of the said writ petition, was cancelled. The petitioner then filed a Writ C No.23670 of 2014 challenging the order dated 12.09.2013, the order of allotment of respondent no.5. The Division Bench, after taking note of the fact, has disposed of the said writ petition on 21.12.2017 with obervation and direction. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is mentioned hereunder:
"8. As far as the interim order passed in the case of Yad Ram is concerned, his petition had already been dismissed and subsequently licence was granted to respondent No. 5. Writ petition of the petitioner had also been dismissed earlier on 27.2.2013. As far as allotment in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi is concerned, that allotment was made during the pendency of the writ petition of Yad Ram and admittedly the writ petition of Yad Ram had already been dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2014 by this Court after allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No. 5. The allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner had already been cancelled. Hence, in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case at this stage to issue direction to restore or to issue allotment order in favour of the petitioner. However if the petitioner has any grievance regarding cancellation of his licence and subsequently allotment made in favour of respondent No. 5 and if he is advised he will have liberty to move application/complaint before the competent authority."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed a representation before the Licensing Authority on 09.06.2018 and when it was not decided for certain period, he approached this Court by way of present writ petition with prayer to decide the said representation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State wherein they have admitted that the allotment to the respondent no.5 is not as per the law. In the counter affidavit, a document has been annexed at Annexure-CA1 which is an order dated 24.9.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Gunnaur, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been decided. It has been stated therein that as no relief was granted by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2017, therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that while passing the aforesaid order, Licensing Authority has not taken note of the fact that the allotment granted to the respondent no.5 on 12.09.2013 was passed when there was already an interim order operating in favour of Yad Ram.
Learned counsel for the State has not been able to contradict the above submissions.
In view of the above, it appears that the respondent no.3 has missed certain issues and has not decided by order dated 24.09.2018 the issue whether allotment to respondent no.5 on 12.09.2013 was as per law or not.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:
The order dated 24.09.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gunnaur (Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to decide afresh including the issue of allotment of fair price shop to respondent no.5, after hearing the parties concerned. The parties aggrieved by the outcome of the said order are hereby at liberty to take remedy available under the Government Control Order known as Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 P Kesari