Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors on 19 December, 1975
9. Answering the preliminary objection, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the scope and ambit of aggrieved person, particularly in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the benevolent piece of legislation i.e. National Food Security Act, 2013 and Rules 2015 framed there under and Control order dated 10.08.2016 has been elaborated in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of AIR 1976 SC 578 Jashbhai Motibai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmad and others. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual aggrieved person has to be distinguished from a stranger. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope of aggrieved person has made criteria to distinguish the actual aggrieved person from stranger. A solid central zone of aggrieved persons and concentric nebulous zone of strangers has been conceived but providing a rider that all persons in this nebulous zone will not be treated as stranger, some of them have to be treated as aggrieved persons. The criteria of the relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:-
Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 25 May, 2022
18. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. 2010 AWC 1878 learned Standing Counsel submits that the complainant is not a person aggrieved and he has no right to file writ petition, as the complainant or ration card holder does not come within the definition of aggrieved person for requesting of cancellation of the license of fair price shop. 19. Learned Standing Counsel, addressing on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition submits that a person can file writ petition, under article 226 of Constitution of India for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III or any other purpose, only, if the legal rights of a person is violated. Therefore, the existence of the legal right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
Smt Saavan Sri vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 March, 2022
16. The license of the Fair Price Shop is issued u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, and Fair Price Shop owner acts as an agent of the Government to run a Fair Price Shop. The Uttar Pradesh Government in exercise of power u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act promulgated Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) order 2016. In clause 8 of Control order 2016, the procedure for disbursement of the foodgrains to the ration card holder has been provided. Sub-clause 7 of the clause 8 order 2016, speaks that competent authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop owner's license. The right of appeal and the person who is entitled to file the appeal has been provided in Clause 13 of order 2016. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is clearly provided that against the order of suspension, cancellation or restoration of the fair price shop license, the ration card holder or any other person does not have any right to file the appeal. Thus such person does not come under the definition of the aggrieved persons. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Case of Saavan Sri Vs. State of U.P. 2022(V)ADJ 347, learned Standing Counsel submits that the complainant has no right to file the appeal against revocation of suspension or denying the cancellation of Fair Price Shop license. The right of appeal has been given with respect to orders of denial or renewal of agreement to a fair price shop owner or an order of suspension or an order of cancellation of agreement of Fair price Shop. No other order or further orders has been made appealable. Thus an order of revocation of suspension of Fair Price Shop agreement is not appealable under Clause 13(3) of the Control Order 2016.