Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 November, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147088-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(105) LPA-1564-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 12.11.2024
Malkit Singh ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.Arundhati Kulshrestha, AAG, Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
31.08.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-19161-2023 wherein
the Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by coming to the
conclusion that the request for transfer of the fair price shop licence issued to
appellant's grandfather had rightly been declined vide order dated 17.05.2023
(Annexure P-10) which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
2. It was noticed by the Learned Single Judge that the deceased
depot holder had never appointed the appellant as his successor and he was
having land in his name and his financial condition was good and that he was
not dependent upon anyone. He was also more than the age limit prescribed in
the policy and therefore, the authority had found that he would not be eligible
for allotment of the depot on compassionate ground and neither his case was
recommended and therefore, the request was rejected.
3. The Learned Single Judge, while noticing Clause 9(10), came to
the conclusion that transfer of the licence has to be made to any eligible person
from the family in case of demise of the licensee or in case of 100% disability
of the licencee. The definition of 'family' was kept in mind as also the
dependency aspect of the depot holder to come to the conclusion that there
was no indefeasible right and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was
having land in his name and his financial condition was good, it was rightly
held that it was not a case of hardship.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147088-DB
(105) LPA-1564-2023 (O&M) -2-
4. The additional affidavit filed by the appellant dated 04.03.2024
(Annexure P-14) projected that there is financial exigency in the family which
is in contrast to the affidavit dated 14.05.2024 filed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Moga. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to file a better
affidavit vide order dated 06.08.2024. The same reads as under:
"Affidavit of Deputy Commissioner, Moga has been filed,
which is taken on record. A perusal of the said affidavit goes on to
show that one of the sons of the appellant is residing abroad, whereas
in the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, it has been deposed
that his one son is school going and the other son is in search of
employment.
Let, a better affidavit be filed, giving details regarding the son
who is residing abroad and qua the status of his citizenship and
employment and about his financial contribution to his father.
Adjourned to 12.11.2024."
5. Today, neither the better affidavit has been filed regarding the son
who is residing abroad and qua the status of his citizenship and employment
and about his financial contribution to his father. It is, thus, apparent that what
was being held out in the affidavit filed by the authority has not been
controverted by the appellant. Once the appellant's son is abroad and
appellant had been concealing this fact that one son is searching for
employment, we are of the considered view that the Learned Single Judge was
well justified in dismissing the writ petition. It is settled principle that a
person not coming to the Court with clean hands is not entitled for the
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any
infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge.
Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. All pending
application(s) also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
12.11.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
