Ravindra Singh vs D.M. Mainpuri and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

By this petition, Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 09/2/2011, by which order the fair price shop agreement has been allotted to Rajesh Kumar, i.e. Respondent No. 5 dependent of the deceased fair price shop holder Mehndipal.

Petitioner has come up in the writ petition contending that the decision regarding allotment of fair price shop to Rajesh Kumar ought to have been held in the open meeting of the Gram Panchayat.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Government Order dated 17/8/2002, creates an exception with regard to consideration of allotment of fair price shop in favour of the dependent of the deceased fair price shop holder whose reputation was good.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Punjab and Sind Bank and Another Vs. Manoram Agencies and Others, . In the said case the Division Bench has held that normally, the allotment of fair price shop has to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and as an exception a discretion has been conferred upon the competent authority that after the death of existing fair price shop licensee, if his reputation was good, the competent authority may consider the allotment of shop to the heirs of such deceased licensee.

Petitioner''s case is fully covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar''s case (supra).

In para 3 of the said judgment the Division Bench held as under:

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant Government order. It clearly shows that the normal procedure, which has to be followed by the authorities for allotment of fair price shop, is selection from the eligible persons through a committee to be constituted at Tahsil level consisting of various persons as detailed in para 5 of the said Government order. As an exception a discretion has been conferred upon the competent authority that after the death of existing fair price shop licensee, if his reputation was good, the competent authority may consider the allotment of shop to the heirs of such deceased licensee. The said Government Order, therefore, nowhere provides any preferential right to the heir of a deceased licensee to claim allotment of shop and it is for the authorities to decide. When the competent authority has decided to make allotment by selection from the eligible persons, we do not find any illegality or irregularity therein and the said decision cannot be challenged at the instance of the Petitioner on the ground that he has a preferential right of consideration.

We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 09/2/2011, by which order the fair price shop agreement has been allotted to Rajesh Kumar i.e. Respondent No. 5, dependent of the deceased fair price shop holder.

The writ petition is dismissed.