Allahabad High Court
Shiv Shankar Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy, Food ... on 13 September, 2022
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6069 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy, Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7/Gram Panchayat, Dasauli and Smt. Neera Yadav, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 8, which is taken on record.
In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to other private respondent is dispensed with.
The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Opp. No. 3, 4 & 5 to take appropriate action against the O.P. No. 8 & 9 for fraudulent action of distributing the food grains after the death of Fair Price Shop holder of village Dasauli, Block Milkipur, district Ayodhya namely Daya Ram Yadav on 27-02-2022 and also for misappropriation of the food grain of the card holders of the above said village Dasauli.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opp. party No 3, 4 & 5 to recover the amount of food grain which has been fraudulently shown distributed by the O.P. No.8 after 27-08-2022 i.e. after death of Daya Ram Yadav, fair price shop holder of village dasauli."
For the purposes of interim relief as also maintaining the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, in respect of illegality committed by respondent No. 8/Subhash Chandra Yadav, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure No. 1 to this petition) and thereafter a joint representation dated 13.07.2022 was preferred by the petitioner and others (Annexure No. 14 to this petition).
Elaborating the illegality committed by respondent No. 8, it is stated that the father of respondent No. 8 namely Daya Ram Yadav was a fair price shop licence holder, who expired on 27.02.2022 and information of his death was not communicated by his son/respondent No. 8 to the Authorities concerned and he distributed food grains to card holders. The distribution was made without any authority. Learned counsel says that with these allegations, the representations aforesaid were preferred. In first representation, the prayer is to the effect that the report be lodged against respondent No. 8 and legal action be taken against him. In second representation, the prayer is to the effect that the fair price shop licence, in issue, be cancelled and process for fresh allotment be initiated.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for State raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present petition. He stated that the petitioner is a complainant and he has no right to maintain the present petition.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of judgment of this Court dated 05.02.2019 passed in Writ-C No. 43188 of 2017 (Akhlaq v. State of U.P and others), present petition is maintainable.
It is apparent from the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Akhlaq (supra) that the same is based on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 58 (Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others), the relevant para on reproduction reads as under:-
"23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect."
Learned counsel for the State also placed before this Court an order dated 06.09.2022, which is taken on record. Based upon this order, it is stated that the issue raised in the representations aforesaid, though with different prayers, has already been considered and decided by the Authority concerned/SDM, Milkipur, Ayodhya and the respondent No. 8 has also been awarded punishment of forfeiture of security and this order is not under challenge and at present, the respondent No. 8 is the licence holder of shop in question. Thus also, the present petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the same.
Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the concerned Authority has already taken action on the representations preferred by the petitioner and final order has been passed, which has not been challenged in the present petition.
In aforesaid background, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022 Arun/-