High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Gaon Panchayat Bisawar Block & Another v. The District Magistrate & Others - WRIT - C No. 49854 of 2003  RD-AH 5206 (7 November 2005)
Court No. 37
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49854 Of 2003
Gram Panchayat Bisawar,
Block Sadabad, District
Hathras and another Petitioners
The District Magistrate, Hathras
and others Respondents
Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.
By means of the present writ petition, the two petitioners who are the Gram Panchayat Bisawar, Block Sadabad, District Mathura through its Pradhan Shri Ghanshyam Singh and Shri Chhitar Singh seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order dated 18.07.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Hathras, Respondent No.1, filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. They are also seeking a writ of Mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 to enforce the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 and take action on the resolution of the petitioner No. 1 dated 4.12.2001 (wrongly mentioned in relief (b) as 24.12.2001).
It appears that Shri Ghanshyam Singh, on being elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchyat Bisawar, held a meeting of the Gram Panchyat and passed a resolution on 4th December, 2001 seeking cancellation of the fair price shop licence of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and in their place making appointment of two new persons as the fair price shop licensees. The District Magistrate on 24.12.2001 has passed an order directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadabad to take appropriate action on the said resolution. When no action was being taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadabad, the petitioners approach this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5938 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4.02.2003 with a direction to the petitioners to make a representation before the District Magistrate, who shall decide the same within a time bound period.
Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the District Magistrate has filed the representation. He has held that against the respondent Nos.4 and 5, except for the complaint made by the petitioner, there was no other complaint and further the functioning of the two fair price shop licensees, being respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein, was in order. They have been distributing the essential commodities and Kerosene oil to the Ration Card Holders within the stipulated period and no irregularity was found. He was further of the view that the resolution dated 4.12.2001 has not been passed in the presence of the Tahsildar, which was required under law by means of a Government Order, and therefore, the same did not have any binding effect.
We have heard Shri Vinod Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned standing counsel who represents respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri B.L. Yadav, who represents Respondent No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as the order dated 13.09.2001 had not been served upon the petitioners, there was no necessity of holding a General Body Meeting of the Gram Panchyat in the presence of the Tahsildar and, therefore, the District Magistrate could not have ignored the resolution dated 4.12.2001. He further submitted that there was numerous complaints against the functioning of the two respondents namely respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and, therefore, the Gram Panchyat had rightly recommended for the cancellation of the fair price shop licence of the said respondents and for allotment to two new persons. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the order dated 13.09.2001 was served upon the petitioner or not wherein the Gram Pradhan was required to hold the General Meeting in the presence of the Tahsildar as we are of the considered opinion that the Gram Pradhan is only a recommending body for allotment/cancellation of fair price shop licence and the existing licence can be cancelled only upon the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the grant of licence or the control order which enables the authority concerned to cancel the same.
In the present case the District Magistrate has found that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been working properly and there has been no complaint except the complaint made by the Gram Pradhan. Further they were distributing the essential commodities and Kerosene Oil to the Ration Card Holders periodically, which fact was also got verified by him through his subordinates from the Ration Card Holders and no irregularity was found.
Thus the decision taken by the District Magistrate in not accepting the resolution/recommendation of the Gram Pradhan for cancelling the licence of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be said to be based on irrelevant material or extraneous considerations.
In this view of the matter we do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed. However, it will be open to the Gram Pradhan to pass a fresh resolution in accordance with law in case any irregularity comes to its notice in respect of the functioning of Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.