Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONCIVIL SIDEDATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2012BEFORETHE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN,J.THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH,J.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32716 of 2011Smt. Asha SharmaVersusState of U.P. and othersCounsel for the Petitioner:Sri Ramesh Chand TiwariSri P.S. BaghelSri R.C. DwivediCounsel for the Respondents:C.S.C....Petitioner...RespondentsConstitution of India,Article 226-Allotment of Fair Price Shop license-oncompassionate ground-rejected onground-when cancellation order gotfinality in the life time of dealer-noquestion of compassionate allotmentsmisconceived-whencancellation orderaffecting 22 other persons includinghusband of petitioner restoredautomatically-was no occasion forchallenging the same-admittedly till thedate of death her husband run the shopallotmenton compassionate ground inview of G.O. 17.08.2002 can not bedenied.(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J. )1. The brief facts of the case are thathusband of the petitioner Late BhupendraSharma who was a fair price dealer wasappointed on 20.9.1997 along with 22other persons who were also aggrieved bythe same order. Then by order dated2.7.1998 the appointment of the petitioneras well as the other 22 persons had beencancelled. Challenging the same, one ofsuch persons whose appointment hadbeen cancelled filed a writ petition beforeLucknow Bench of this Court being WritPetition No.2105(MB) of 1998 in whichan interim order was granted. Pursuantthereto the respondent authorities restoredthe fair price shop of the husband of thepetitioner Late Bhupendra Sharma also.Husband of the petitioner continued to runthe shop till his death on 1.10.2010. Afterthe death of her husband, the petitionerfiled an application on 14.10.2010 forappointment of the fair price shop dealerin place of her husband on compassionateground, in terms of the Government Orderdated 17.8.2002 which provides for suchappointment to the dependents of thedeceased fair price shop dealers onfulfillment of the conditions mentioned inthe said Government Order. The saidapplication of the petitioner had beenrejected by order dated 28.4.2011 passedby the District Supply Officer, Agra. By asubsequent order dated 19.5.2011 passedby the District Supply Officer, Agra, thepetitioner has been given liberty to file afresh application for grant of fair priceshop dealer on the basis of merits on thevacancy created on the death of husbandof the petitioner. Challenging theaforesaid orders dated 28.4.2011 and19.5.2011 passed by the District SupplyOfficer, this writ petition has been filed.2. We have heard Sri R.C.Tiwari,learned counsel for the petitioner as wellas learned standing counsel appearing forthe petitioner. Pleadings between theparties have been exchanged and withconsent of learned counsel for the partiesthis petition is being disposed of at theadmission stage.3. The ground on which theapplication for grant of fair price shop
1 All] Lala Ram and others V. State of U.P. and another 87dealership on compassionate ground hasbeen rejected is that after cancellation ofthe fair price shop of husband of thepetitioner on 2.7.1998 he had not filedany writ petition and as such even thoughthe fair price shop of the husband of thepetitioner was restored, he would not beentitled to the benefit of continuance ofsuch dealership and consequently thebenefit of the Government Order dated17.8.2002 could not be available to thepetitioner.4. The respondents do not deny thatthe petitioner is a dependent of thedeceased fair price shop dealer. Merelybecause after the suspension of the fairprice shop of husband of the petitioner herhusband had not filed the writ petition, thepetitioner cannot be denied the benefit ofthe Government Order dated 17.8.2002specially when the respondent authoritieshad themselves restored the dealership ofthe husband of the petitioner. Thecontention of the petitioner has force thather husband had no occasion to approachthe High Court when his dealership hadalready been restored. It is admitted thatthe authorities themselves had withdrawnthe order of suspension and restored theshop of husband of the petitioner,meaning thereby that the dealership of thehusband of the petitioner continued till hisdeath on 1.10.2010. The petitioner hadthereafter on 14.10.2010 applied for thefair price dealership on compassionateground in terms of the Government Orderdated 17.8.2002 which should have beenconsidered on merits instead of havingbeen rejected on technical grounds.5. In view of the aforesaid, we allowthis writ petition and quash the ordersdated 28.4.2010 and 19.5.2010 passed bythe District Supply Officer. Therespondents are directed to consider theapplication of the petitioner dated14.10.2011 in terms of the GovernmentOrder dated 17.8.2002 and in the light ofthe observations made herein above, asexpeditiously as possible, preferablywithin two months from the date of filingof a certified copy of this order beforerespondent no.3.6. No order as to cost.---------ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL SIDEDATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2012BEFORETHE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH,J.Criminal Misc. Application No. 33210 of 2011Lala Ram and others ...PetitionerVersusState of U.P. and another ...RespondentsCounsel for the Petitioner:Sri Vikram D. ChauhanSri Anil Kumar TiwariCounsel for the Respondents:Govt. AdvocateCode of Criminal Procedure-Section-210-trail of two different cases with differentaccused persons-against same incidentoneby taking cognizance oninvestigation under Section 173-theother one by issuing process oncompliant case-can not be consolidatedbut can be decided simultaneously onbasis of evidence adduced separatelyheld-impugnedsummoning orderjustified-needsno interference.Held: Para 13In the facts and circumstances of thisparticular case and the view expressedby the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
Page 1 and 2:
1 All] Mohan Singh V. U.P. Rajya Vi
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
1 All] Smt. Suman V. Brij Kishore 7
Page 9 and 10:
1 All] Ravindra Kumar Singh and oth
Page 11 and 12:
1 All] Ravindra Kumar Singh and oth
Page 13 and 14:
1 All] Mahendra Pratap Sharma V. St
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
1 All] Rameshwar Prasad Shukla V. T
Page 23 and 24:
1 All] Rameshwar Prasad Shukla V. T
Page 25 and 26:
1 All] Kailash Singh V. State of U.
Page 27 and 28:
1 All] Upma Srivastava V. State of
Page 29 and 30:
1 All] Dwarika Prasad and others V.
Page 31 and 32:
1 All] Dwarika Prasad and others V.
Page 33 and 34:
1 All] Manoj Kumar Gupta V. Smt. Ka
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Manoj Kumar Gupta V. Smt. Ka
Page 43 and 44: 1 All] Uttar Pradesh State Road Tra
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Uttar Pradesh State Road Tra
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Shiromani Yadav V. The C
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Gauri Shankar Gupta V. The S
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Km. Sandhya V. State of U.P.
Page 61 and 62: 1 All] Km. Sandhya V. State of U.P.
Page 63 and 64: 1 All] Madan V. State of U.P. and o
Page 65 and 66: 1 All] Madan V. State of U.P. and o
Page 67 and 68: 1 All] Bal Krishna Awasthi and anot
Page 69 and 70: 1 All] Bal Krishna Awasthi and anot
Page 71 and 72: 1 All] Km. Gyanti V. State of U.P.
Page 77 and 78: 1 All] Smt.Akila & others V. Nisar
Page 79 and 80: 1 All] Pramod Kumar V. State of U.P
Page 81 and 82: 1 All] Pramod Kumar V. State of U.P
Page 83 and 84: 1 All] Badka and others V. District
Page 85: 1 All] Badka and others V. District
Page 89 and 90: 1 All] Lala Ram and others V. State
Page 91 and 92: 1 All] Smt. Geeta Varshney V. Allab
Page 101 and 102: 1 All] Prem SIngh V. XIIth Adj,Agra
Page 107 and 108: 1 All] Munish Kumar Sharma and anot
Page 109 and 110: 1 All] Munish Kumar Sharma and anot
Page 111 and 112: 1 All] Harijinder Singh V. State of
Page 125 and 126: 1 All] Jai Ram V. D.D.C. and others
show all

Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?