Allahabad High Court
Ram Mohan Tyagi vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 16 October, 2014
Bench: Rajes Kumar, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56003 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ram Mohan Tyagi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Sharma,Atul Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.8.2014 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate grant of licence for the fair price shop has been rejected.
The petitioner' father Jyoti Prasad was the licencee of Gram Panchayat Rahlai, Tehsil Kheragarh, District Agra. He died on 22.5.2014. The petitioner claimed the compassionate allotment of a fair price shop under the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. It appears that when the case of the petitioner has not been considered, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37387 of 2014 on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was directed to decide the application of the petitioner within four weeks. In pursuance thereof, the application of the petitioner has been decided and rejected. The S.D.M. has rejected the application on the following grounds:
"'kklukns'k la[;k&[email protected]&6&2002&162 [email protected] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002 ds izLrj&10 ds [k.M ^^>^^ esa ;g izko/kkfur gS fd ^^;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 gSA^^
esjs }kjk Lo0 Jh T;ksfrizlkn dh O;fDrxr i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij ik;k x;k fd fnukad 25-8-1995 dks Jh T;ksfr izlkn 800 yhVj feV~Vh rsy dh dkykcktkjh djrs gq;s idM+s x;s] ftlds dze esa bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad&115 fnukad 29-08-1995 }kjk mudh mfpr nj dh nqdku dk vuqcU/k i= fuyfEcr fd;k x;k rFkk leLr izfrHkwfr 'kklu ds i{k tCr djrs gq;s fnukad 29-01-1996 dks vuqcU/k i= cgky fd;k x;k FkkA blh izdkj dk;kZy; ds iwoZ i= la[;k&1163 fnukad 27-11-2002 }kjk vfu;ferrk,a cjrs tkus ij Jh T;ksfr izlkn dh leLr tek izfrHkwfr :i;k [email protected]& 'kklu ds i{k esa tCr djrs gq;s psrkouh nh x;h FkhA bl dk;kZy; ds vU; i= la[;k&558 fnukad 25-02-11 ds }kjk vuqcU/k&i= tkWp esa ik;h x;h vfu;ferrkvksa ds dkj.k fujLr dj fn;k x;kA bl izdkj lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh esa e`rd fodzsrk dh mfpr nj dh nqdku dk vuqcU/k&i= ,d ckj vfu;ferrk, cjrus ds QyLo:i fuyfEcr] ,d ckj fujLr o nks ckj leLr izfrHkwfr dh /kujkf'k 'kklu ds i{k esa tCr dh tk pqdh gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd e`rd fodzsrk Lo0 Jh T;ksfrizlkn ds fo:) dkQh f'kdk;rsa i=koyh ij miyC/k gS] ftu ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fu;ekulkj dk;Zokgh dh x;h gSA
mDr ls Li"V gS fd Jh T;ksfrizlkn e`rd fodzsrk dh [;kfr vPNh ugh FkhA vr% Jh jkeeksgu R;kxh iq= Lo0 Jh T;ksfrizlkn R;kxh fuoklh jgybZ dks e`rd vkfJr fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr 'kklukns'kkuqlkj mfpr nj dh nqdku dk vkoaVu ugh fd;k tk ldrk gS] rn~uqlkj buds izkFkZuk&i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA^^
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the application being moved, S.D.M., Kheragarh has asked the Khand Vikas Adhikari to take necessary step in pursuance of the Government Order, but without getting any inquiry report from the Khand Vikas Adhikari about the conduct and popularity of late Jyoti Prasad on the basis of the inquiry, the impugned order has been passed rejecting claim of the petitioner. He submitted that popularity of the deceased is to be verified from the general public which has not been done in view of clause (Jha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, therefore the impugned order is not justified.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that purpose for making the inquiry was to know the conduct and popularity of the erstwhile licencee. In the present case, the S.D.M. has examined the conduct and popularity of late Jyoti Prasad from the record itself and found that there wewe number of complaints against him and irregularities were found against which action has also been taken against him and, therefore, his conduct and popularity was not found upto the mark for the grant of compassionate allotment of the fair price shop. He submitted that compassionate allotment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It can only be granted on a strict compliance of the conditions mentioned in the Government Order. The Government Order provides that only in a case of good conduct and popularity of the erstwhile licencee, the compassionate allotment can be given to the dependents of the deceased.
We have considered rival submissions and perused the impugned order and the material on record.
The compassionate allotment is an exception to the general rule. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It can only be claimed on the strict compliance of the conditions mentioned for such claim in the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. The condition for the compassionate allotment of the fair price shop is that the erstwhile licencee should have the good conduct and popularity. In the present case, from the perusal of the record, the S.D.M. found that the erstwhile licencee was found involved in black marketing of kerosene oil for which his security has been forfeited. Number of times his licence has been suspended and cancelled for the irregularities found and his security has been forfeited. On the basis of the material on record, the S.D.M. has arrived to the conclusion that the conduct of the erstwhile licencee was not found upto the mark and, therefore, he denied the compassionate allotment. The petitioner is not able to refute the grounds mentioned in the impugned order.
We do not find any error in the impugned order which requires interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.10.2014
OP
