RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 3.12.2019 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Chhibramau, Kannauj (respondent nos. 4 herein) whereby the representation of the petitioner seeking appointment as fair price shop dealer, being dependent of the deceased dealer Bhaiya Lal, has been rejected solely on the ground that the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of 45 days.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner, namely Bhaiya Lal was fair price shop dealer of the village. He died on 31.1.2019. According to the petitioner, he filed an application in the office of respondent no. 4 for allotment of the dealership in his name in terms of Government Order dated 15.2.2019. However, when no heed was paid to his request, he filed Writ - C No. 36491 of 2019 before this Court. It was disposed of by order dated 6.11.2019 with a direction to respondent no. 4 to decide his representation within two weeks. In terms thereof, the instant decision has been taken. One of the findings returned in the impugned order is that the alleged representation of the petitioner dated 9.3.2019 is not on record, but only a representation dated 1.8.2019 received by registered post is available. It has also been held that the said representation dated 1.8.2019 having been received beyond 45 days from the date of death of the father of the petitioner, is beyond the time limit prescribed in Government Order dated 15.2.2019, consequently, the shop cannot be allotted to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is usual practice in the office of respondent no. 4 not to acknowledge receipt of representations/applications. It is submitted that the representation was duly handed over to the concerned clerk in the office of respondent no. 4 on 9.3.2019, but when no action was taken on the same, another representation was sent by registered post on 3.9.2019. These facts were also clearly stated by the petitioner in his reminder dated 21.11.2019. It is also urged that till date, the dealership has not been allotted to any one and therefore, there is no impediment in considering the petitioner's application for grant of dealership to him. He also urged that as per finding recorded in the impugned order, there was a ban imposed by the State Government itself at the time of death of his father for allotting dealership on compassionate grounds to the dependent of a deceased dealer. Consequently, even otherwise, the application was not entertainable at that point of time.