Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41265 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Savita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sahawar, Distt. Kasganj, whereby the claim set up by the petitioner for fair price shop has been turned down.
The record in question reflects that the petitioner's date of birth, which was mentioned at the time of filing his credentials for allotment of fair price shop was 21.4.1998. Admittedly at the time of resolution his date of birth was 20 years 2 months and 22 days, whereas as per the Government Order dated 17th August, 2002, which provides for procedure for settling the fair price shop as well as eligibility, the incumbent has to be of 21 years of age and as such at the relevant point of time he was under age. In this backdrop, the order impugned has been passed.
Shri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits that due to inadvertence the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 21.4.1998, whereas such discrepancy was later on rectified by the competent authority and as per the rectification made in the school leaving certificate his date of birth is 21.4.1996. It is also contended that by the order impugned the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned has also directed for convening the fresh resolution within 15 days. In this backdrop, it is submitted that leave may be accorded to the petitioner to participate in the open meeting to be convened for settling the fair price shop in question.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that no doubt at the time of filing his credentials qua the proposal mooted by the authority for settling the fair price shop in question the petitioner did not have the requisite age i.e. 21 years and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. However, once later on the said discrepancy has been rectified by the competent authority, in such situation, it is always open to the petitioner to participate in the said resolution. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue as well as qua the age of the petitioner that would be decided by the authority independently on the basis of record.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. The instructions is taken on record.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 SP/