1 Court No. - 11 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 199 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rishi Pal Singh Respondent :- U.P.Ayukt(Khadya),Lko.Div.Lucknow And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Kumar Misra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri C. B. Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents.
Sri Dinesh Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner in brief
has submitted that the petitioner Sri Rishi Pal Singh by virtue of an
agreement was alloted a fair price shop at Village Katiya Block Mallawan,
District Hardoi and was cancelled by order dated 11.8.2009.
Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before
the Deputy Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, Lucknow, Region
Lucknow (Appeal No.878 of 2009-10), which was admitted and the
matter is pending for hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has moved an application for stay praying therein that the fair
price shop in question shall not be allotted to any other person during the
pendency of the appeal but the said application was rejected by order
dated 11.1.2010 (annexure-1 to the writ petition).
Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging order dated
11.1.2010 has submitted that action on the part of the respondent no.1
thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay is an action which is
arbitrary in nature because once appeal filed by the petitioner has been
entertained so then there is no justification or reason on part of respondent
no.1 not to grant stay order as prayed and pass the impugned order dated
11.1.2010.
In support of his argument he relied on an order passed by this
Court in Misc. Single No.6910 of 2009, Atma Ram Vs. Up Ayukt
(Khadya), Lucknow Division Lucknow wherein this Court by order dated
14.12.2009 has held as under:-
“Therefore, I am of the view that till the
judgment in appeal, the fresh allotment is kept under
2suspension and I am not inclined to interfere in the
proceeding of the case. The writ petition is dismissed,
however, I hope that court below shall take decision at
an early date.”
Sri C.B. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand submits that the order, which is under challenge in the present writ
petition is perfectly valid and in accordance with principle of natural
justice as during the pendency of the appeal if the shop in question is not
alloted to any other person on a temporary basis then the public of the
village in question, who is getting the essential goods from the shop in
question shall suffer loss.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admitted in the present case the licence of fair price shop of the
petitioner was cancelled and thereafter an appeal was filed before the
respondent no.1 and the same is pending for adjudication.
In our country majority of the people live below the poverty line
and for the purposes in order to supply them the essential goods (wheat,
sugar, rice etc.) the Government under the policy/scheme known as Public
Distribution System has established fair price shop throughout the country
in order to enable them to get the same at a cheaper rate which is
foremost, important and necessary need of the day for supply to the said
class of person. So in case if the supply to the said class of person are
stopped from the fair price shops, which are set up under Public
Distribution System then the persons in whose benefit the fair price shops
are operated will suffer loss and irreparable injury which is against their
interest and further the same will also be against the social justice.
Keeping in view the said facts, I am of the opinion that there is
neither any illegality nor infirmity in the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by
the respondent no.1 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) as such present
writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed.
However, it is clarified that if during the intervening period if the
shop in question is alloted to some other person as an interim measure
that will be subject to decision of the appeal.
Order Date :- 19.1.2010
Pramod