Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvinder Singh vs Darshan Kumari And Others on 23 December, 2025
RSA-4470-2025 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4470-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.12.2025
Harvinder Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Darshan Kumari and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1 assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. The suit for declara6on ins6tuted by the plain6ff, Smt. Darshan Kumari (respondent No.1 herein), was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 07.07.2025. The appeal preferred by defendant No.1 was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 01.10.2025, thereby affirming the findings and conclusions recorded by the trial Court.
3. The case set up by the plain6ff was that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and possesses educa6onal qualifica6ons of B.A., B.Ed., PGDCA and M.Sc. (Informa6on Technology). Applica6ons were invited by the office of the District Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Controller for grant of licence for running a fair price shop (Ra6on Depot) for Ward No.4, Ra6a. Both the plain6ff and defendant No.1 applied in response thereto. Defendant No.1 belongs to the Backward Class category and is 10+2 pass. In the mee6ng of the Selec6on CommiBee held on 28.08.2019, defendant Nos.2 to 4 recommended the name of defendant No.1 for grant of licence.
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:25:49 :::
RSA-4470-2025 (O&M) [2]
4. Aggrieved by the said recommenda6on, the plain6ff approached the authori6es contending that her applica6on was wrongly rejected on the premise that she was a BPL card holder, whereas she never possessed a BPL card. It was further pleaded that under Rule 5 of the Public Distribu6on System (Control) Order, 2009, preference was required to be given to an unemployed Scheduled Caste female graduate, and that she fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and was more meritorious than defendant No.1. She further pleaded that despite geFng her address verified by the Secretary, Municipal CommiBee, Ra6a, cer6fying her as a resident of Ward No.4, the authori6es failed to rec6fy the illegality. Consequently, the suit was filed seeking a declara6on that the recommenda6on and licence granted in favour of defendant No.1 were illegal, null and void, and that her candidature was required to be considered afresh.
5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 contested the suit asser6ng that the allotment in favour of defendant No.1 was made by following due procedure. Defendant No.1 adopted the same wriBen statement.
6. Upon framing of issues and apprecia6on of evidence, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit. The findings were re-appreciated by the learned First Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
7. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has primarily raised two conten6ons: firstly, that the plain6ff was a BPL card holder and therefore, not en6tled to preference; and secondly, that she was a resident of Ward No.3 and not Ward No.4, rendering her ineligible for allotment of the fair price shop for Ward No.4.
8. Both the above conten6ons as raised by learned counsel were duly considered by the Appellate Court while re-apprecia6ng the evidence 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:25:50 ::: RSA-4470-2025 (O&M) [3] and it was observed as under:-
"20. Perusal of recommenda6on Ex.P2 dated 28.08.2019 (inadvertently men6oned as 26.08.2019 in the plaint), it transpires that the case of the plain6ff was not recommended for issuance of licence by the commiBee consis6ng of Shri Parmod, Shri Yadwinder, Shri Jagraj Singh only on account of the fact that she was BPL card holder. In the said recommenda6on, it is conceded that she was more educated than defendant No.1 Harvinder Singh. There is no other ground for not considering her applica6on. As per categoric case of the plain6ff, she does not fall in BPL category and is not the holder of BPL card. There is no denial of the said fact in the wriBen-statement filed by the defendants. Even, no evidence has been led by the defendants in this regard. As such, she is not proved to be BPL card holder or fall in BPL category so as to assume that she was not having sa6sfactory economic background or for not-recommending her applica6on. In fact, the recommenda6on dated 28.08.2019 is made on the wrong basis that plain6ff falls in BPL category and is not jus6fiable.
21. As per Rule 5 of the no6fica6on dated 13.07.2009 issued by Haryana Government Food & Supplies Department, relied upon by both the par6es, while making recommenda6on for the issue of fair price shop licence, the order of preference of all eligible applicants shall be as under:-
1. Self Help Group or Sakshar Mahila Group;
2. Unemployed female/male graduate;
3. Schedule caste female/male
4. Backward Class (A) female/male;
5. Ex-serviceman
22. AdmiBedly, the plain6ff is more educated than defendant No.1 as is evident from recommenda6on dated 28.08.2019. From the perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is apparent that plain6ff was required to be preferred over defendant No.1 being female, belonging to schedule caste and also graduate. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 is only 10+2 pass and belongs to backward class. Thus, there was no ground not to recommend the case of the plain6ff.
23. At this juncture, learned counsel for defendant No.1 vehemently argued that the plain6ff is not the resident of Ward No.4 but is resident of Ward No.3. As per Clause 2 (h) of the no6fica6on dated 13.07.2009, eligible applicants means a person having 10+2 or its equivalent qualifica6on, not less than 21 years of age and is a resident of the locality for which the fair price shop licence is applied for. To prove the said fact, learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon Ex. D3 to Ex.D5 i.e., Voter Card, Electoral Roll, Voter List. He argued that since plain6ff is not resident of Ward No.4, she is not the eligible candidate for
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:25:50 ::: RSA-4470-2025 (O&M) [4] the allotment of licence for fair price shop. As such, her case was rightly not recommended by the commiBee.
24 However, there is no merit in the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the defendant No. 1. As discussed above, in the recommenda6on dated 28.08.2019, the only ground on which applica6on of the plain6ff is not recommended is that she is the BPL card holder. Her applica6on is rejected on no other ground. At this stage, the said recommenda6on cannot be jus6fied on the ground that plain6ff is not the resident of Ward No.4 when said reason is not spelled in the said recommenda6on. Rather, the said ground is not available to the defendants to jus6fy their recommenda6on dated 28.08.2019.
25. Regardless of the said fact, the plain6ff has duly proved on the case file that she is resident of Ward No.4. In this regard, she has placed on record leBer Ex.P5 issued by Secretary Municipal CommiBee Ra6a to Inspector Food and Supply Department sta6ng that the department had inspected the site and had found that plain6ff Kumari Darshan Singh is permanent resident of Ward No.4 and her name is registered in the voter list of Ward No.4 at Serial No.1. The court has no reason to disbelieve the said report which clearly proves the plain6ff to be resident of Ward No.4 and not Ward No.3. So far issuing of leBer Ex.P12 bearing No.ID-2019/3498 dated 26.11.2019 to MC Ra6a for verifica6on of address of plain6ff and in response thereof receiving of leBer bearing memo No.3454/MCR dated 28.11.2019 by defendant No.2 is concerned, the said leBer is not proved on the case file. Same is neither exhibited nor placed on record. As such, no reliance can be placed on the same. Thus, plain6ff is proved to be resident of Ward No.4 and as such, was eligible candidate for the allotment of licence for running Ra6on Depot."
9. It is evident that both the conten6ons were exhaus6vely considered and duly rejected by the learned First Appellate Court while re- apprecia6ng the en6re evidence. The Appellate Court has recorded detailed and reasoned findings, which have been extracted hereinabove, to the effect that the sole ground for not recommending the plain6ff was the erroneous assump6on that she was a BPL card holder. There was neither any pleading nor any evidence led by the defendants to substan6ate the said allega6on. The recommenda6on dated 28.08.2019 itself acknowledged that the plain6ff was more educated than defendant No.1.
10. The Appellate Court further correctly interpreted Rule 5 of the 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:25:50 ::: RSA-4470-2025 (O&M) [5] PDS Control Order, 2009, which prescribes the order of preference for grant of licence of fair price shops. As per the said rule, preference is to be accorded, inter alia, to unemployed female graduates and Scheduled Caste candidates, both of which categories were admiBedly sa6sfied by the plain6ff. Defendant No.1, on the other hand, being only 10+2 pass and belonging to the Backward Class category, stood lower in the order of preference.
11. So far as the objec6on regarding residence is concerned, the Appellate Court has rightly held that the same could not be pressed into service to jus6fy the recommenda6on, as the recommenda6on dated 28.08.2019 did not cite residence as a ground for rejec6ng the plain6ff's candidature. Moreover, on merits as well, the plain6ff successfully proved her residence of Ward No.4 through cogent documentary evidence, including the cer6ficate issued by the Secretary, Municipal CommiBee, Ra6a, which was duly proved on record. The contrary documents relied upon by defendant No.1 were either not proved or did not outweigh the official verifica6on conducted by the Municipal authori6es.
12. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are thus based on proper apprecia6on of oral and documentary evidence and correct interpreta6on of the applicable statutory provisions. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, misreading of evidence, or applica6on of an erroneous legal principle so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdic6on under Sec6on 100 CPC.
13. It is well seBled that in a second appeal, the High Court does not act as a Court of re-apprecia6on of evidence and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substan6al ques6on of law arises. No such ques6on has been made out in the present case.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:25:50 :::
RSA-4470-2025 (O&M) [6]
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
23.12.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:25:50 :::