Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And ... on 16 September, 2013
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50246 of 2013
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 17.8.2013 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition).
It appears that the Gram Panchayat concerned on 5.8.2013 passed a Resolution recommending the name of the petitioner for allotment of the Fair Price Shop in the village. Copy of the Proposal of the Gaon Panchayat passed in the meeting held on 5.8.2013 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition.
It further appears that when the Proposal came-up for consideration before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Milak, District-Rampur, the said Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned Order dated 17.8.2013 declining to accept the proposal of the Gram Panchayat for appointment of the petitioner as Dealer of the Fair Price Shop in the village.
It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Order dated 17.8.2013 that the petitioner has not as yet completed the age of 21 years while as per the requirements of the Government Order dated 17th August, 2002, the person must have completed the age of 21 years for being appointed as Dealer of a Fair Price Shop.
The petitioner has, thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.
We have heard Shri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Shri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Sub-Divisional Magistrate erred in passing the Order dated 17th August, 2013 declining to accept the Proposal made by the Gram Panchayat concerned in favour of the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the provisions contained in sub-clause ¼³½ of Clause 10 of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, the person seeking appointment as Dealer of a Fair Price Shop must be more than 21 years of age.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Clause 10 of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 is reproduced below:
"10.xzkeh.k {ks= esa jk'ku dh nqdkuksa dk p;u fuEufyf[kr vfuok;Z vgZrkvksa ,oa 'krksZs dks -f"Vxr j[krs gq, fd;k tk;sxk&&
¼d½ vH;FkhZ ds [kkrs esa de ls de 40 gtkj :i;k miyC/k gks rkfd og viuh nqdku dks vkoafVr ,d ekg dh lkekxzh dk ,d ckj esa mBku djus ds fy, vkfFkZd :i ls l{ke gksA
¼[k½ lkekU; [;kfr vPNh gks A
¼x½ f'kf{kr gks rkfd og nqdku dk fglkc fdrkc lgh :i ls j[k ldss A
¼Ä½ vH;FkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ Hkh vkijkf/kd ekeys iath--r u gks vkSj u gh og fdlh vkijkf/kd ekeys esa nf.Mr fd;k x;k gkss A
¼³½ vH;FkhZ dh vk;q 21 o"kZ ls vf/kd gks vkSj ifjokj esa fdlh vU; lnL; ds uke dksbZ nqdku vkoafVr u gks A
¼p½ nqdkunkj LFkkuh; fuoklh gks A
¼N½ vH;FkhZ }kjk 1][email protected]& :i;s dh vusZLV euh dk cSad Mªk¶V ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh ds i{k esa tek fd;k tk;sxks A mijksDr vusZLV euh nqdkuksa ds vkoaVu dh fLFkfr esa izfrHkwfr jkf'k esa lek;ksftr dj yh tk;sxhA
¼t½ nqdkuksa dh fu;qfDr bl fLFkfr esa vH;FkhZ dks 5][email protected]& :i;s dh izfrHkwfr tek djuh gksxh rFkk [email protected]& :i;s dk ukutwfMf'k;y LVkEi isij yxkuk gksxkA ;g izfrHkwfr dsoy u;s fu;qfDr gksus okys nqdku ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ls yh tk;sxhA ftudh nqdku iwoZ ls gh fu;qDr gS vkSj lapkfyr gS muls u;s nj ij izfrHkwfr ugh tek djok;h tk;sxhA
¼>½ ;fn nqdkunkj vPNh [;kfr dk gks rks mldh e`R;q ds mijkUr nqdku dk vkoaVu mlds vkfJr dks djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSs A vkfJr dk rkRi;Z iRuh] iq= rFkk vfookfgr iq=h ls gSA "
Sub-clause ¼³½ of Clause 10, inter-alia, provides that the applicant for allotment of a Fair Price Shop must be more than 21 years of age.
It is not disputed by Shri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not as yet completed the age of 21 years. Infact, Shri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.6.1995, and thus, the petitioner is aged 18 years 2 months at present.
It is, thus, evident that the petitioner does not fulfil one of the requirements of the above-quoted Clause 10 of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002.
Hence, the petitioner is not eligible for being appointed as Dealer of the Fair Price Shop in question.
The impugned Order dated 17.8.2002 has, thus, been correctly passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned (respondent no.2).
The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.9.2013
Ajeet...
