Allahabad High Court
Ram Karan vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others on 11 December, 2014
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66509 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ram Karan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Mustafa Khan,Afshan Shafaut
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Pandey,D.D. Chauhan
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri D. D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the respondent no.2 in Appeal No. C-201217000072.
Admittedly, petitioner is a subsequent allottee. The respondent no. 5 was initial allottee of fair price shop, which was cancelled and thereagainst he preferred an appeal which has been allowed by means of impugned appellate order.
It transpires from the record that respondent no.5 was licensee of fair price shop situated in Village Madrehna alias Duttpur Post and Tehsil Shohratgarh District Siddharth Nagar and initially vide order dated 11.04.2011 the fair price shop of respondent no.5 was suspended and subsequently the same was cancelled vide order dated 24.10.2011. Thereafter, proposal was made by the Gram Sabha (respondent no.6) and finally petitioner had been allotted the fair price shop. Meanwhile the respondent no.5 had assailed cancellation order by means of filing an appeal before the Commissioner concerned and by means of order dated 14.10.2014 the fair price shop of the respondent no.5 had been restored.
The grievance of the petitioner is that without affording any opportunity of hearing at this stage the fair price shop of the respondent no.5 had been restored and petitioner had been ousted.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has placed his reliance upon the judgment dated 19.12.2006 (Hari Om Vs. State of U.P.), reported in LAWS (ALL)-2006-12-114 and judgment dated 13.03.2007 (Shyamawati Vs. Commissioner Agra Division), reported in 2007 (5) ADJ 233.
He further submits that petitioner having entered into shoes of respondent no. 5 his rights were subject to attainment of finality of cancellation order of respondent no. 5 but if the said order is set aside, petitioner has no right to continue. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10539 of 2007 (Smt. Vimla Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 13.03.2007 has held that subsequent allottee has no right to continue with fair price agreement. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sri Pal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) ADJ 718 wherein it has said:
"9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. As is evident from the narration of the facts given above, the licence was given to the respondent No. 6 for running the Fair Price Shop in question. On account of cancellation of the licence of respondent No. 5, the petitioner was permitted to run the Fair Price Shop as a stop-gap arrangement. As the licence of the respondent No. 5 has now been restored by the order dated 30.5.208, the petitioner evidently cannot be permitted to run the Fair Price Shop in question any longer, as the same would now be run by the respondent No. 5.
10. In view of the above, the Writ petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed."
Following the above authorities, the same view has been taken subsequently by this Court in Writ Petition No. 17604 of 2012, Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 09.04.2012; Writ Petition No. 19987 of 2012, Ramveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 24.04.2012; Writ Petition No. 29177 of 2012, Ram Deen Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 01.06.2012; Writ Petition No. 21699 of 2013, Ram Dayal and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 18.04.2013; Writ Petition No. 52171 of 2012, Babu Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 06.09.2013; and, Writ Petition No. 30439 of 2014, Smt. Janki Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others.
In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.12.2014
VKG
