Smt. Gudiya Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 19640 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8640 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Gudiya Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadava,Anupama Bhadauria
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.K. Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing appearing on behalf of State-Respondents and Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.

The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs :-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 (Contained in ANNEXURE No. P-1), only up to the extent that it provides attachment of the fair price shop of village Panchayat Rajwapur, Block Payagpur, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich to the link shop of Village Panchayat Shambhu Tikari, Block Payagpur, Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the opposite party No. 5 to restore the petitioner's fair price shop license, which has been duly issued by the opposite party No. 5 vide order No. 182/???????/???????/????????/2020, dated 14-10-2020."

A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri G.K. Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing as also by Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 regarding maintainability of present petition. It is submitted that the present petition on behalf of the subsequent allottee is not maintainable, as she is not the person aggrieved to challenge the order impugned in this petition. Thus, the present petition on this ground is liable to be dismissed with cost. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Poonam v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016 (7) ADJ (SC) 530.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid that the petitioner is a subsequent allottee.

Considering the admitted fact that the petitioner is a subsequent allottee and the judgment relied upon, this petition is not liable to be entertained. According, the same is dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.12.2022

Arun/-