High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Suresh Singh Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1116 of 2007  RD-AH 15049 (5 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2007
Suresh Singh yadav,
Son of Sri Shiv Sagar Yadav,
Resident of Village-Gaura, Post-Gathia,
1. State of U.P. through its Secretary (Food),
Civil Supply, U.P. at Lucknow.
2. Commissioner (Food) Varanasi Mandal,
3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tjahsil Mahammadabad
4. District Supply Officer, Ghazipur.
5. Smt. Mansa Devi s/o Vikram Yadav
r/o Village Gaura, Post Gathia,
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Amarnath Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Pande
Mr. Y.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Date : September 5, 2007
Oral Judgement (Per : H.L. Gokhale, C.J.)
1. Heard Mr. Amarnath Srivastava in support of this appeal, Sri Rakesh Pande for contesting respondent no.5 and Sri Y.K. Srivastava who appears for respondents no.1 to 4.
2. The appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the writ petition.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that respondent no.5 ought not to have been awarded second fair price shop since the appellant was already having a fair price shop in the concerned village and that the total number of units available in the concerned village was less than 4000. The submission of the appellant is that the second fair price shop is not justified.
4. The matter was sent down to the Commissioner to look into the submission made by the appellant. The appellant was relying upon a report which shows that number of units are only 3711. As against that after obtaining District Officer's report it was seen that number of units are 4823. This being the position the order was passed that the second shop was justified.
5. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that this data collection was behind the back of the appellant and the appellant could not make his submissions in this regard.
6. As far as this fact is concerned the data collection is done by the concerned officers. There is no participation of the shop-holders or cardholders in this exercise. The allottees of the fair price shops are essentially functioning on an allotment made by the State Government. It is for the government to decide whether a second shop is justified or not. In this view of the matter learned Single Judge was right in passing the order under challenge.
7. We have gone into the merits of the submissions made by the appellant so that the appellant may not be denied any opportunity. There is objection by the respondent that the appeal itself was not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules inasmuch as this is an order passed under U.P. Scheduled Distribution Order 2004 which is referable per Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
Date : 5.9.2007.
(Anjani Kumar, J.)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.