Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Triloki Lal Meena vs State Of Raj And Ors on 14 March, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10211/2007 Triloki Lal Meena vs State of Rajasthan & ors 14.3.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr HK Sharma for the petitioner Mr SB Sharma -for respondent No.5 Mr K Verma for respondents No.1 to 4 BY THE COURT:
This writ petition pertains to allotment of fair price shop in Village Inayati, Tehsil Sapotra, Disrict Karauli. So far as petitioner Triloki Lal Meena is concerned, he has challenged allotment of fair price shop to Jas Raj Meena respondent No.5 who has also filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.869/2008. Petitioner Triloki Lal Meena alleged Jas Raj Meena to be under age because, as per the policy, one is required to have attained age of maturity i.e. 18 years, however, respondent No.5-Jas Raj Meena being at the age of 17 years and 9 months was not eligible to make application for fair price shop. On account of suppression of fact regarding age, erroneously he has been given authorisation of fair price shop.
During pendency of the writ petition also, documents showing the age as entered in the Board of Secondary Education has not been filed though directed. If the certificate filed by the petitioner is looked into, it shows respondent No.5 to be at the age of less than 18 years.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, submits that at the time of authorisation, respondent No.5 was at the age of 21 years.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully.
I have perused the complete record which include order sheets of both the writ petitions. Respondent No.5 has passed junior higher secondary as disclosed by him in his application. Despite order dated 13.12.2007 passed by this court, respondent No.5 has not produced school certificate showing his date of birth. Order dated 13.12.2007 reads as under:-
Shri Shashibhushan Gupta, learned counsel has put in appearance as Caveator respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.5 is directed to produce on record school certificate showing his date of birth.
Notice be issued to respondent No.1 to 4, returnable by four weeks. Meanwhile, operation and effect of the order dated 29.9.2007 (Annexure-10) shall remain stayed.
In the light of aforesaid, it is coming out that order has not been complied with. This is to suppress age of respondent No.5. In the aforesaid background, he is not entitled to get any benefit rather adverse inference is drawn against him and in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Authorisation of fair price shop issued in favour of respondent No.5 for Village-Inayati, Tehsil Sapotra is set aside.
It is, however, made clear that with the acceptance of the writ petition, petitioner would not be entitled for authorisation of fair price shop in place of respondent No.5, rather, respondents No.1 to 4 would be at liberty to issue authorisation in favour of others, as per policy. The petitioner will, however, be entitled to maintain one-fourth share as allotted to him. This is in view of the fact that the Government has allotted one-half share divided it in two and even 3 parts depending on the number of ration cards. Aforesaid action of the Government has been upheld in the case of Nemi Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4026/2008, decided today.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma