Meera Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru Home Secy. And 3 ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 9142 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4670 of 2014
 
Petitioner :- Meera Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Home Secy. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Ojha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 

 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

It appears that the petitioner's husband Sri Rajendra Singh was the licensee of the fair price shop of Gram Nagla Darua (Sargawan), Tehsil Sadar, Firozabad. Sri Rajendra Singh died on 31.8.2013 and after his death, the petitioner being the wife, applied for the licence of a fair price shop on a compassionate ground under Clause-10 (Jha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002.

It appears that some resolutions have been passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner. When the matter came for consideration before the  Sub Divisional Magistrate, Firozabad, a complaint has been made by one Vidyaram son of Sri Vedram resident of Sargawan on 06.11.2013 to the extent that the resolution has been passed by Gram Panchayat without any order/direction of the Authority concerned. It appears that on the said complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Firozabad has directed for inquiry and it was found that resolution has been passed without any order of the Competent Authority. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, FIrozabad vide order dated 13.12.2013 has rejected the application for the allotment of the fair price shop on compassionate ground, on the ground that a resolution has been passed without any direction by the Competent Authority and further the reputation of Sri Rajendra Singh was not good and, therefore, no benefit under Clause-10 (Jha) can be given on a compassionate ground.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2013.

Counter affidavit has been filed on 12.3.2014, the copy of the counter affidavit is not available on the record. However, the copy of the same has been provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner which has been perused by us.

In paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, following has been stated :-

" That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition it is submitted that it is incorrect to suggest that the husband of the petitioner who died on 31.8.2013 was distributing the essential commodities with devotion. The fact of the case is that there were complaints and the husband of the petitioner had committed irregularities, therefore, vide order dated 7.9.2001, the security amount of Rs. 250/- was forfeited in favour of State Government. The husband of the petitioner several times committed irregularities in distribution, therefore, license of fair price shop of the husband of the petitioner was suspended vide orders dated 27.5.2004, 13.7.2004, 1.11.2006, 18.12.2008, 14.7.2008, 25.11.2008, 20.7.2009, 29.9.2009, 22.4.2010 and subsequently restored after forfeiting the security amount in favour of Government and given warning to the husband of the petitioner. Copies of the orders dated 7.9.2001, 27.5.2004, 13.7.2004, 1.11.2006, 18.12.2008, 14.7.2008, 25.11.2008, 20.7.2009, 29.09.2009 are collectively being filed herewith as Annexure No. CA-1 to this affidavit. For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the general reputation of the husband of the petitioner was good."

The said paragraph has been replied by paragraph-3 of the rejoinder affidavit, which as follows :-

" That the content of the paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 is not true hence denied in reply the averment made in the paragraph no. 4 of writ petition is reiterated and reasserted. It is further submitted that there is village rivalry between the petitioner and other villager and they have given a false complaint to the respondent no. 5 and that basis license of petitioner has suspended but after a fair inquiry conducted by him petitioner has exonerated and the suspension order passed by respondent no. 5 is revoked and petitioner continuing running his fair price."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the petty irregularities, the license of the fair price shop has been suspended and subsequently restored on the forfeiture of the security amount. From the suspension orders, it cannot be inferred that the reputation of her husband Sri Rajendra Singh was not good. 

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Government order dated 17th August, 2002 provides complete procedure for allotment of the fair price shop in a Village. Clause 7 of the Government Order provides that the name of the person may be recommended by passing a resolution in an open meeting of the Gram Panchayat and the said resolution be recommended to a penal headed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Further Clause 10 (Jha) of the Government Order provides that the compassionate allotment of the fair price shop to the dependent of the deceased licensee, in case if the reputation of the erstwhile deceased licensee is good.

Clause -10 (Jha) of Government Order dated 17.8.2002 read as follows :-

Þ¼>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 gSA vkfJr dk rkRi;Z iRuh] iq= rFkk vfookfgr iq=h ls gSAß

To avail the benefit of compassionate allotment of the fair price shop, there should be a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat to the effect that the reputation of the erstwhile deceased licensee was good and the person, who applied to avail such benefit, is eligible for consideration of the compassionate allotment of the fair price shop.

The compassionate allotment is an exception allotment which is made in exception to the general allotment. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. One of the condition for the allotment on compassionate ground, is that the reputation of the erstwhile licensee should be good. This condition has to be complied strictly.

In the present case, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has found that the Gram Panchayat has passed the resolution, without any order of a competent authority and further found that the reputation of the erstwhile deceased licensee, late Rajendra Singh, was not good. The perusal of the various orders annexed along with the counter affidavit reveals that on number of occasions, license of fair price shop of Sri Rajendra Singh was suspended and has been subsequently restored after forfeiting the security amount. In such orders, Sri Rajendra Singh has not been exonerated from the charges, in as much as the the explanation in respect of the charges were not found satisfactory however, the license has been restored on the forfeiture amount of the security.

Thus, on these facts, if the Sub Divisional Magistrate has inferred that the reputation of Sri Rajendra Singh was not good, it cannot be said to be without any material and perverse.

In view of the above, we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Firozabad, which requires any interference by this Court.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.11.2014

Monika