Sangam Lal Mishra vs State of U.P.

@DELETEUPPERDATA

The petitioner is a fair price shop licence holder who has come up disputing the allotment of a second shop in the Gram Sabha concerned in favour of Bachhan Lal who has been impleaded today as respondent No. 5 under our orders passed on the impleadment application represented by Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Advocate. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Shukla for the Respondent No. 5.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter be disposed of finally at this stage itself on the basis of the pleadings which are on record including the information of the Block Development Officer dated 3.12.2012 which has been supplied by Sri Shukla. The respondents do not propose to file any Counter-Affidavits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice the Government Order dated 1.10.2013 as also the subsequent orders passed by the District Magistrate for implementation and identification of the units.

The dispute raised by the petitioner is to the allotment of a fresh shop in favour of respondent No. 5 which has been approved on two grounds. Firstly, in view of the distance between two villages within the same Gram Sabha and the second ground is that according to the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 as well as the subsequent Government Orders, the number of ration cards has exceeded the number of 800, and the units entitled to receive essential commodities have also crossed the figure of 4,000.

The petitioner, therefore, contends that such grounds are not available to invoke the Government Orders on the facts of this case, inasmuch as the petitioner has brought on record the number of units as existing and certified on 24.6.2014, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition which is less than 4000.

It is further submitted that the aforesaid figures are also reflected in an earlier letter of the Block Development Officer dated 10.1.2013, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

We have perused the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha and we find that the said resolution was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has passed the orders on 16.7.2014 accepting the same and has directed for grant of another licence in favour of Sri Bachhan Lal. The consequential directions were given to the concerned supply office.

Sri Dwivedi submits that once the figures that have been certified by the Block Development Officer are less than 4,000/- units then in that event the very foundation of the resolution appears to have been passed on incorrect facts.

On the other hand, Sri R.P. Shukla has invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated 3.12.2012 which is of a prior date that indicates that the total number of units is 5215.

It is thus clear that the figure relied upon by the Gaon Sabha is of a previous period whereas the petitioner has relied on certain information that has been issued currently in 2014. The impugned order proceeds on the basis of such information of 2012. The Sub Divisional Magistrate does not appear to have considered the aforesaid aspects which have been raised by the petitioner and for which documents have been brought on record.

We had adjourned the matter to enable us to find out as who is the competent authority empowered to identify the number of units according to the definition of the word "Food Officer" as contained in Clause 2(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 read with the powers so assigned to the said Food Officer under the said order.

The Government Order dated 1.10.2013 has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner which is to the following effect:

The said Government Order has been issued under the powers conferred on the State Government under Clause 2(m) of the 2004 Order which prescribes several authorities including the Block Development Officer as also one of the officers who is obliged to be trained to carry out the job of identification of the number of units.

Consequently, we are of the opinion that in the face of two conflicting figures by the Block Development Officer as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, which has not been considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 16.7.2014 and the consequential order dated 24.7.2014 are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja, District Allahabad to proceed to ascertain the aforesaid facts as disputed between the parties in relation to the number of units as also the provisions of the Government Order applicable to the controversy, and then proceed to pass an order preferably within six weeks'' from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.