Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rekha Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 8 December, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58090 of 2016
Petitioner :- Smt. Rekha Kumari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.S. Pandey, Ramesh Kumar Sahu
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. When agreement of fair price shop of dealer of village Ajeet Nagar was cancelled then petitioner Rekha Kumari was appointed as fair price shop dealer. Earlier fair price shop dealer has challenged order of cancellation of his agreement in appeal, that was allowed. Therefore petitioner Rekha Kumari, being subsequent allottee of shop in question, was found not entitled to be continued as fair price shop dealer of the said shop and accordingly her agreement was cancelled by order dated 11.3.2016 of respondent no.-3. That order has become final. Thereafter petitioner had moved application dated 9.9.2016 for her appointment as fair price shop dealer because licence of existing fair price shop dealer had again been suspended. After cosidering his application/ representation, the SDM (Respondent no.-2) had passed impugned order dated 13.10.2016 in which it was held that in concerned Gram Sahba the number of card holders is 2531 and total umber of card units is 12655; so considering the concerned G.O., there should be three fair price shop in said Gram Sahba, whereas four price shop are already running. In these circumstances, respondent no.-2 had found that no further appointment of fair price shop is required and accordingly passed order dated 13.2.2016, that has been challenged in the present writ petition.
2. Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out lots of alleged irregularities before passing of the impugned order, and had submitted that no report was sought by respondent no.-2 before passing the impugned order, therefore it is erroneous. This submission is found apparently erroneous and unacceptable because impugned order in itself mentions that after receiving report from subordinate officer regarding card holders and card units of said Gram Sabha, order is being passed.
3. After hearing rival submission and from perusal of record, it is found that in Gram Sabha in question there apparently 2531 card holders relating to 12655 card units. It is also found that petitioner, who has been fair price shop holder in this village for some period, has been removed because she was subsequent allottee, and the agreement of earlier fair price shop dealer was reistated. It is found that the petitioner is willing to be appointed as fair price shop dealer in this Gram Sahba and his request has been declined by respondent no.-2, therefore she has moved present writ petition.
4. Impugned order dated 13.10.2016 is apparently not erroneous. The decision on point of opening of new fair price shop is discretionary for respondent no.-1, and such discretion should be exercised in accordance with concerned Government Order. Exercise of reasoned discretion is evident in impugned order dated 13.10.2016 which is apparently not infirm or erroneous. Therefore the impugned order needs no interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
5. Apart from it, the petitioner has no statutory or constitutional right to be appointed as fair price shop dealer, which is the main inherent but latent relief sought through this writ petition. Her dealership was cancelled in accordance with law. It is a case of damnum sine injuria.The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner. None of his legal or constitutional right has been infringed when additional fair price shop is not being opened or she is not being appointed as fair price shop dealer. There is no fundamental right in anyone to be appointed as agent of a fair price shop under a Government scheme. No legal right of petitioner is in fringed from impugned order. Therefore no legal injury is going to be caused to him by impugned order. Therefore the relief sought by writ petitioner is declined.
6. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.12.2016
SKS
