MAHAVEER SWAMI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25/06/2012, whereby the Collector in the capacity of appellate authority set side the order Annexure-P/2 dated 28/07/2011, whereby fair price of respondent No.4 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, it was temporarily allotted to the petitioner. The basic facts giving rise to the petition are as under:- 1) The petitioner, a registered cooperative society has working area in ward No. 4 of Mou Nagar Palika. After registration w.e.f. 11/10/2004, the petitioner society preferred an application before the SDO for allotment of shop in ward No. 4. The SDO considered the application and issued a letter dated 10/12/2010 to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society Bhind and sought his opinion. In turn, the said authority granted no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner by communication dated 27/12/2010.

(2.) ) A show-cause notice dated 11/07/2011 was issued to the respondent No.4 for cancellation of his shop situated at ward No.4 on the ground that working area of the said society is confined to ward No. 3, 6, 8, 9 and 12. Respondent No.4 submitted his reply Annexure-P/9 and in last paragraph specifically stated that if ward No. 4 is not within his jurisdiction/working area, shop may kindly be allotted in ward No. 3, 6, 8, 9 or 12. After considering the reply, the SDO passed the order Annexure-P/2 whereby, the shop of respondent No.4 was cancelled on the ground that as per the bye-laws of respondent No.4, shop cannot continue in the said area. In lieu thereof, the shop which was allotted to respondent No.4 is temporarily allotted to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with this order Annexure-P/2, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Collector for following reasons:- (1) The record shows that working area of respondent No. 4 is urban area of Mou. (2) New fair price shop can be opened on the basis of population of 5000 in a particular area (3) The presiding officer had permitted to open new fair price shop without obtaining permission from the competent officer. The power to fix the number of fair price shops is vested with the Collector and not with SDO. (4) The SDO had created new fair price shop.

(3.) ) I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.