JAG JIVAN RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks relief for quashing of the impugned order dated 14th August, 2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, the respondent no. 2 herein, whereby the resolution taken by the concerned Gram Panchayat on 10th July, 2012 for allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner has been rejected and again the meeting has been directed to be convened on 18th August, 2012 for taking a fresh resolution.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, according to the petitioner, are that in Gram Panchayat Pahasu, Block and Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur (in short called "Gram Panchayat"), on account of death of fair price shop dealer, vacancy arose for allotment of said shop to the new dealer. Such vacancy was informed to the respondent no. 2, who directed to hold meeting of Gram Panchayat on 09th June, 2012 for taking resolution in connection thereto. However, on 09th June, 2012 the meeting could not be held for want of quorum. Subsequent thereto, after following due process of law and by issuing agenda and munadi, the date for holding meeting was fixed for 10th July, 2012. On 10th July, 2012 open meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held in presence of Inspector of Police, Secretary of Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat Sahayak for considering appointment of new fair price shop dealer and videography of such meeting was also done. In such meeting, candidature of the petitioner and one Sri Sanjay Kumar was considered for the purpose. However, Sri Sanjay Kumar, looking to the less support of Members of the Gram Panchayat in his favour, started creating hindrance in the meeting, but due to interference of the police, he could not succeed and had boycotted the meeting with his supporters. Ultimately, in the meeting dated 10th July, 2012 all the persons unanimously resolved for appointment of the petitioner as dealer of fair price shop and such resolution was sent to the respondent no. 2 for further action. Thereafter, the persons, who boycotted the meeting in support of Sri Sanjay Kumar, disputing the correctness of the meeting made a complaint before the concerned Block Development Officer-respondent no. 3, who directed the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) to enquire into the matter. The Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), after enquiry, submitted his report dated 16th July, 2012 stating that meeting was held in accordance with law and no dispute or quarrel took place in the meeting. Thereafter, another complaint was made by the supporters of Sri Sanjay Kumar before the respondent no. 2, who directed the Naib Tehsildar to enquire into the matter. Naib Tehsildar submitted his report dated 08th August, 2012 stating therein that during the course of enquiry, the persons, who were in favour of the petitioner, told that no dispute was raised, whereas the persons, who were supporters of Sri Sanjay Kumar, told that there was dispute and since there was equal strength from both the sides, no referendum could be made. On the basis of such report, the respondent no. 2 by the impugned order dated 14th August, 2012 cancelled the resolution dated 10th July, 2012 and directed to hold a fresh meeting on 18th August, 2012.

(3.) It is against this order dated 14th August, 2012 that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by saying that the meeting was held by the Gram Panchayat on 10th July, 2012 in presence of Supervisor/Sector Prabhari and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat wholly in accordance with law and after following due procedure prescribed under the relevant rules. There was no illegality in the meeting. No one has challenged the validity of meeting of the Gram Panchayat dated 10th July, 2012 since there was no dispute about holding of meeting. Once the Gram Sabha has passed a resolution after following the due process of law for appointment of a person as fair price shop dealer, the respondent no. 2 has only to see whether the meeting has been held or not and if the meeting is held, he is bound to accept the resolution, but in the present case the respondent no. 2 by rejecting the resolution and directing for holding fresh meeting has given a chance to the petitioner's rivals to motivate the supporters of the petitioner. Neither Sub Divisional Magistrate nor Naib Tehsildar has recorded any valid material of evidence to show that meeting was not held in accordance with law or resolution was not passed in favour of the petitioner but they proceeded on assumptions and without application of mind. The respondent no. 2 has not independently made any enquiry either under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act") or in accordance with the Government order dated 03rd July, 1990, which prescribes the procedure for appointment of fair price shop dealer and does not give any power to the respondent no. 2 for sub-delegation of his power to any other authority, but instead of making any enquiry at his own, the respondent no. 2 delegated his power to the Naib Tehsildar to hold the enquiry and on his report passed the impugned order. Moreover, copy of the alleged enquiry report of Naib Tehsildar dated 08th August, 2012 has not been supplied to him.