Allahabad High Court
Aarti Mahila Self Help ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 114 of 2022
Applicant :- Aarti Mahila Self Help Group,Sarai Umar,Raebareli Thru.Pres. Smt.Ram Kumari (In Wric 27634 Of 2021)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply Civil Secrtt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh,Amrendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi and Shri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dilip Pandey, who appears for the respondents.
This review applicant has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 19.04.2022.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that when the petition was filed, it was alleged that although the Agenda was dated 04.09.2021 and was circulated on the same day calling for a meeting to be held on 18.09.2021, the applicant represented before this Court that the respondents have erred in passing the order treating the Agenda to be dated 10.09.2021. He had drawn the attention of the Court to argue that probably there was corrections in the Agenda dated 10.09.2021 whereas actually the Agenda was dated 04.09.2021.
The order under challenge in the writ petition was an order holding that there was no effective compliance of Rule 32 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, which provides for 15 days clear notice before a meeting can be held. In the light of the said submission, this Court had passed the judgment holding that prima facie the error was committed by the respondents in calling the meeting held on 18.09.2021.
The present review application has been filed stating that even if the contention of the applicant was found to be correct i.e. to the effect that the Agenda was circulated on 04.09.2021, still 15 days clear notice was not there, as the meeting was held on 18.09.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to Rules 9 and 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act to argue that there was no 15 days clear notice, even if the contention of the applicant was found to be true that the Agenda was circulated on 04.09.2021.
When the matter is being argued, my attention has been drawn to a subsequent order dated 18th May, 2022 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar Rae Bareili holding that fresh exercise for allotment of fair price shop be carried out after giving 15 days clear notice, which makes it clear that fresh orders in pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court had already been passed in respect of taking fresh steps for the allotment of the fair price shop.
Considering the fact that an error has crept in the judgment dated 19.04.2022 inasmuch as even treating the date of the Agenda to be 04.09.2021, there was no 15 days clear notice, the judgment dated 19.04.2022 is recalled to the extent that it is directed that S.D.M. shall pass the orders after considering the above Agenda as dated 04.09.2021. Clearly, the earlier Agenda did not observe the statutory requirement of 15 days clear notice under Rule 32 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947.
The judgment dated 19.04.2021 is reviewed with the provision that the directions with regard to the enquiry shall continue, however, the fresh exercise for allotment of fair price shop shall be carried out in pursuance to the order dated 18th May, 2022 passed subsequent to the passing of the judgment dated 19.04.2022.
The review application stands disposed off in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 25.7.2022
Shafique
