AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Chandra, J.—The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition making the following prayer:
i. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned authority to decide the matter pending regarding cancellation of Caste Certificate dated 24.2.2010 ( Annexure No. 4 to this Writ Petition), which has been obtained by the respondent no.7, Smt. Sumitra Devi, wife of Sri Ramesh Chandra by fraud and misrepresentation.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate Maharajganj ( Respondent no. 3) to take an appropriate action in the matter, so that the illegality prevailing regarding allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of respondent no. 7, Smt. Sumitra Devi may be removed, which has been allotted in her favour by Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj vide order dated 22.12.2011 ( Annexure no. 5 to the Writ Petition ) relying on the Scheduled Caste Certificate ( Anneuxre no. 4 to the Writ Petition ) as Smt. Sumitra Devi, wife of Sri Ramesh Chandra ( respondent no. 7) belongs to the caste "Kahar" ( O.B.C.) and not the " Gond" ( Scheduled Caste ).
iii. Issue any other suitable writ and just order which this Hon''ble Court may deef fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. Allow the Writ Petition with costs."
As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner was ExFair Price Shop dealer in question. The agreement of the petitioner regarding the ExFair Price shop dealership was cancelled. Thereafter, the said shop was allotted to the respondent no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi ).
The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Caste Certificate submitted by the respondent no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi ) showing herself to be Caste ''Gond'' ( Scheduled Tribe ) was not correct. In fact, the respondent no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi ) belong to the caste ''Kahar '' (Other Backward Classes).
We have heard Sri H.K.Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Gulab Chandra holding brief for Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.
Sri H.K.Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the petitioner is not one of the applicant in the fresh exercise of allotment of fairprice shop in question whereby the said shop was allotted in favour of the respondent no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi ).
In the cirumstances, we are of the opinion that petitioner has no locusstandi to file the present Writ Petitioner seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.