Parmanand vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3667 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 285 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Parmanand
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Kumar Mishra,Gauri Shanker Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for respondent 5-Gaon Sabha.

This intra-court appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.2530 of 2021 by which the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

The appellant was appointed as fair price shop dealer. Subsequently, his agreement was cancelled against which he filed Writ-C No.58005 of 2009 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2013. Thereafter, it is claimed that a resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner for his re-appointment. To seek enforcement of that resolution, without making a reference of that resolution in the relief clause, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.2530 of 2021 with a prayer that respondents be directed to reappoint the petitioner as a dealer of fair price shop as he was originally appointed.

As the prayer framed in the petition was not with full disclosure as to whether the resolution was passed after proper initiation of the selection process of a fair price shop dealer, the learned Single Judge, upon noticing that earlier fair price shop agreement in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and thereafter the writ petition challenging the order of cancellation was also dismissed, dismissed the petition being devoid of merit.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no bar in reappointment of a fair price dealer, particularly, if the earlier cancellation of the fair price shop agreement is not on the ground of misconduct.

The learned counsel for the petitioner however failed to bring to our notice any averment made in the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge to demonstrate that the alleged resolution in his favour for fresh appointment was pursuant to any exercise initiated by the department for appointment of a fair price shop dealer in that area. The petitioner has also not placed before us any document to indicate that by a mere resolution of the Gaon Sabha concerned, dealership of a fair price shop dealer can be restored after its cancellation.

Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to be considered for fresh appointment as fair price shop dealer in accordance with law, if otherwise eligible.

Order Date :- 16.3.2021

Kushal