List has been revised.
None present on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition nor any slip for passing over or adjournment has been sent.
Learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2, whereas Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel is present on behalf of opposite party no.3.
The court vide earlier order dated 13.8.2019 has passed the following order:
"Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner is reported to be ill today.
Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents submits that the case is being adjourned continuously from last several dates due to non-availability of Mr.Sarvesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The order sheet reveals that the case is being adjourned due to non-availability of Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner from last several dates.
Adjourned.
List on 29.8.2019.
The case will not be adjourned on the next date, in case counsel for the petitioner is not present appropriate orders would be passed."
Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.3 inform that writ petition was filed by concealing the material fact that the impugned proposal dated 13.6.2018 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition was already acted upon and pursuant to the impugned proposal the competent authority vide order dated 27.6.2018 had alloted the fair price shop in question in favour of opposite party no.3. Order dated 27.6.2018 has not been challenged in the writ petition, writ petition, as such, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts.
Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 submits that in view of interim order dated 18.7.2018 the opposite parties have stopped the lifting of essential commodities for the distribution from the fair price shop in question.
In spite of stop order learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to be present when the case is taken up.
I have gone through the writ petition and documents annexed therein. There is no pleading by the petitioner that the opposite parties have proceeded to make allotment of fair price shop license with respect to the fair price shop in question pursuant to the proposal dated 13.6.2018 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. In case impugned proposal dated 13.6.2018 was acted upon and the competent authority had proceeded to make allotment of fair price shop license on the basis of said proposal the petitioner was required to challenge the allotment order dated 27.6.2018 and concealment of these facts are material to the adjudication of controversy raised in the writ petition. In the absence of these material facts, it is not prudent to decide the writ petition on merit.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 29.8.2019 Ram.