Uttarakhand High Court
Aashma Khatoon vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2025 (M/S)
Aashma Khatoon ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
It is the claim of the petitioner that she had submitted an
online application form on 15.06.2025 for allotment of Fair Price Shop
in Harbanshwala, District Dehradun pursuant to the advertisement
dated 05.05.2025, issued by the respondent no.3/District Supply
Officer, Dehradun. On 27.07.2025, according to the petitioner, in the
official website, it was revealed that the Fair Price Shop has been
allotted to the petitioner, but next day, her name was removed from
the website. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the action of the
respondents seeking directions that the Fair Prince Shop,
Harbanshwala, District Dehradun, be allotted to the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had applied for the allotment of Fair Price Shop at
Harbanshwala, District Dehradun. In fact on 27.07.2025, in the
official website, it was so revealed that shop has been allotted to the
petitioner, but the next day, the name of the petitioner was removed
from the official website. Reference has been made to Annexure No.3 to
refer that this is the official website of the respondent no.3/District
Supply Officer, Dehradun.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that
the Fair Price Shop has never been allotted to the petitioner; there
were two other applicants, who also applied for the allotment of the
Fair Price Shop, but according to him, the shop was allotted to Smt.
Sonali Pal, who has higher qualification. He has tendered the
instructions received by him. Let it be taken on record.
5. He also submits that in the official website of respondent
no.3/The District Supply Officer, Dehradun, it was never notified that
the petitioner has been allotted any Fair Price Shop; Annexure No.3 is
not the extract of the official website. Instead, it is some private
website in the name of Avikal Uttarakhand.
6. The petitioner has not placed any document to reveal
that the Fair Price Shop at Harbanshwala, District Dehradun, was ever
allotted to the petitioner. Annexure No.3 to the writ petition has been
claimed to be the official website of the respondent no.3/District
Supply Officer, Dehradun, which it is not. It is a private website, which
is in the name of Avikal Uttarakhand, perhaps some news website.
Based on it, it cannot be said that the decision taken earlier for
allotment of the Fair Price Shop at Harbanshwala, Dehradun, has ever
been changed. It is categorical stand of the respondents that the
petitioner was never allotted the Fair Price Shop at Harbanshwala,
Dehradun. She was found eligible for the allotment of the Fair Price
Shop, along with two other candidates, but Smt. Sonali Pal, was
allotted the shop, as she was graduate and higher in qualification than
other two candidates.
7. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to
make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
05.08.2025
Ravi Bisht
