Soovas vs State of U.P. and Others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Anjani Kumar Mishra, JJ.—The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying that direction be given to the respondent No. 2 for deciding the Representation dated 6th August, 2013 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). From a perusal of the writ petition and Annexures thereto, it appears that a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21152 of 2013, was filed before this Court by one Smt. Rubi, inter alia, praying for quashing the Letter dated 11th March, 2013, by which the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned had invited Applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer in Village Karnai, Block Hanumanganj, District Ballia.

This Court by the Order dated 30th April, 2013 disposed of the said writ petition, inter-alia, directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to convene a fresh meeting for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer in the Gram Panchayat, Karnai.

It was further directed that after receiving the outcome of the meeting from the Block Development Officer, the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned would take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

It further appears that in compliance with the directions given by this Court in the said Order dated 30th April, 2013, open meeting of Gram Panchayat, Karnai took place on 30th July, 2013, and resolution was passed in the said meeting for appointing Smt. Ram Dulari Devi as Fair Price Shop Dealer in the Gram Panchayat in question.

Thereafter by the Order dated 3rd August, 2013, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ballia (respondent No. 2) appointed the said Smt. Ram Dulari Devi as Fair Price Shop Dealer in the Gram Panchayat in question.

The petitioner claims to have filed objections before the respondent No. 2 on 30th July, 2013 and 6th August, 2013 alleging that certain irregularities had been committed in the meeting held on 30th July, 2013. As no decision was taken on the said objections raised by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

We have heard Sri Atul Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Sri Atul Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that no Application for allotment of the Fair Price Shop in question was filed by the petitioner. The proceedings for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer in the Gram Panchayat in question were held pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the said Order dated 30th April, 2013. The petitioner has not been able to show, as to how, his right or interest was affected by the allotment of Fair Price Shop in question in favour of the aforesaid Smt. Ram Dulari Devi. The said Smt. Ram Dulari Devi has not been impleaded as respondent in the present writ petition.

A perusal of the objections stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner shows that the said objections are only general in nature making vague allegations without being substantiated by any reliable evidence.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.