Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20004 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vijendra Alias Bijju Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Kumar Maurya
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Suresh Kumar Mauraya and the learned standing counsel.
When the license of the one Sri Raj kumar was cancelled the petitioner was given the appointment as a fair price shop dealer. After restoration the license was once again cancelled the petitioner wanted his appointment to revive. However, when that was not done he approached this Court by means of writ petition 35069 of 2018. In the writ petition on 23.10.2018 the following observation was made and it was dismissed.
"It is always open to the petitioner to apply, in case any advertisement is made for appointment of fair price shop due to vacancy created on account of cancellation of licence of respondent No. 5. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ."
Thereafter, it appears that the appointment was required to be made of a dealer on the vacancy created by the removal of Raj Kumar and on 31.12.2018 a direction was issued by S.D.M, Goverdhan, District Mathura, to the B.D.O., Chaumuha, Mathura for having an open meeting, which was held on 18.01.2019. The petitioner represented against the open meeting on 01.02.2019. Report was called for which was submitted on 06.05.2019 by the Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat, Chamuha, Mathura, in which there was an opinion given that no mundi was held on on 11.01.2019 and also that there was no videography of the meeting which had taken place on 18.01.2019.
Thereafter, the report dated 06.05.2019 was not believed by the S.D.M., Goverdhan saying that the report dated 06.05.2019 had various discrepancies. When the matter was not being decided the petitioner filed the instant writ petition with a prayer that his representation dated 01.02.2019 be finally decided. After instruction was called for the learned standing counsel informed the Court that on 12.06.2019 the respondent No. 6 had been given the appointment.
Since, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 had stated that in fact a video recording had been done of the meeting dated 18.01.2019, by order dated 22.08.2019 this Court had permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel to view the video.
Today learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 12.06.2019 by which the respondent No. 6 had been appointed a fair price shop dealer be quashed as his representation dated 01.02.2019 had not been considered properly. He states that as per the enquiry dated 6.05.2019 no munadi had taken place as per law and the munadi on 11.01.2019 was of no value as 15 days time had to intervene between the munadi and the open meeting and he also states that the video which had been prepared had various interpolations.
Learned standing counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 in reply submitted that since there were factual issues regarding which the parties were not agreeing the petitioner could assail the order of appointment, which was appealable under clause 13 of Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodites (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 by filing an appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and learned standing counsel I am of the definite view that this Court cannot decide as to whether the video was genuine. This Court, also, cannot give its conclusion if munadi actually took place. No definite conclusion can be drawn with regard to the meeting which had taken place on 18.01.2019.
However, if the petitioner, if he is so advised can file an appeal against the order of appointment of the respondent No. 6. This appeal shall be entertained without going to the question of limitation and if the same is filed within three weeks from today the factual controversies with regard to the munadi and the videography shall also be looked into by the appellate court.
With these observations this writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 AS Rathor