Primary Agriculture Cooperative ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1781 MP

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            1                         W.P.No.10652/2021


           Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society
                              Vs.
                     State of M.P. & Ors.
Gwalior Bench Dated; 08.02.2022

        Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

        Shri G.K. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahrani, learned counsel for respondent

No.4.

With consent heard finally through video-conferencing.

The present petition is preferred by the petitioner taking

exception to the order dated 19-01-2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby the

authority letter given by the competent authority to respondent No.4

to run fair price shop has been challenged on the ground that earlier

petitioner was holding the responsibility to run the said shop.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 caused his appearance and

placed the documents in which he referred the proceedings undertaken

by the competent authority (SDO, Karera District Shivpuri) vide

Annexure R-4/1 in which order-sheet of January, 2021 indicates that

shop in question was given to petitioner on temporary basis till regular

allotment is made. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also placed

order dated 13-07-2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7229/2016

(Annexure R-4/4) in which reliance was placed upon the judgments of

Apex Court in the matter of Poonam Vs. State of U.P and others, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

(2016) 2 SCC 779 and Division Bench of this Court in the matter of

Vikas Gupta Vs. Smt. Meera Singh and others, 2007 (2) EFR 46

wherein principle of Audi Alteram Partem has been discussed and it

has been stated that natural justice is not an unruly horse and its

applicability has to be adjudged, regard being had to effect and impact

of the order and the person who claims to be affected and that is where

concept of necessary party becomes significant. Therefore, considering

said mandate, no case for interference is made out.

Heard.

Considering the rival submission and the fact that allotment to

the petitioner was made temporarily and in the manner petitioner never

had any legal authority to claim hearing before allotment of shop to

any other society. Note-sheet and documents appended with the return

of respondent No.4 reveals exact position.

Considering the mandate of Apex Court in the matter of

Poonam (supta) and Division Bench of this Court in the matter of

Vikas Gupta (supra), no case for interference is made out. Petition

sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

                                                           (Anand Pathak)
Anil*                                                         Judge
        ANIL KUMAR
        CHAURASIYA
        2022.01.25
        04:46:14
        -08'00'