High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Radheyshyam v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 51559 of 2005  RD-AH 9621 (16 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51559 of 2005
Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.
Sri Devendra Kumar Advocate holding brief of Sri D.R. Azad learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents 1,2,3 and 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav learned counsel for the respondent no.5 are present.
The grievance of the petitioner is that vide impugned order dated 22.12.2004 (annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy District Collector, Gyanpur has allotted another fair price shop in the area where the petitioner was already continuing with the fair price dealing shop contrary to the provisions of law. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division who vide its order dated 7.6.2005 (annexure-10 to the writ petition) dismissed the same on the ground that under the public distribution system in the rural areas, the fair price shops are also to be allotted to other persons in terms of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat which in the present case was done vide decision dated 24.10.2005 through the Block Development Officer vide its letter dated 19.11.2004 submitted to the Deputy Collector, Gyanpur and on inspection it was found that the said proposal was passed unanimously by the Gram Panchayat wherein it was proposed that the second shop may be allotted in the name of Smt. Dila Devi-respondent no.5. All these proceedings have been done in accordance with law and procedure and on finding no reason to interfere with the findings of the Deputy Collector, the Commissioner passed the impugned order.
I have looked into the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the parties at length and find that no illegality or any material irregularity having been committed by the concerned authorities while passing the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of any merits. I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising my extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
May 16, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.