KANHAIYALAL Vs. COLLECTOR TIKAMGRH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notice .(Annexure A) dated 26-10-1981, applications were invited for appointment of agents for the fair price shops in the 19 wards of Tikamgarh town. There was one such shop in each of the 19 wards. In pursuance of this notice, two shops were allotted to a Consumer Co-operative Society and two other shops to the Co-operative Marketing Society (respondent No. 3). The remaining 15 shops were allotted to private individuals including the 12 petitioners as they were not required by any Co-operative Society. The order of allotment in favour of the petitioners was made on 28-11-1981 and Annexure B is one such order. Admittedly, the Co-operative Societies, including respondent No. 3 had expressed in writing their unwillingness to take more than two shops each and it was for this reason that after allotting two shops each to the two Societies or in all four shops to the Co-operative Societies, the remaining 15 shops, which were not wanted by any-Co-operative Society, were allotted to private individuals. Agreements were executed by the private individuals, including the petitiners, as a result of the allotment made to them.

(2.) The petitioners were running the fair price grain-shops so allotted to them, when on 6-3-1982, without any prior notice or intimation, the allotment made to them was cancelled by the Food Officer, Tikamgarh. Annexure D-l to D-12 are identical order cancelling allotment of the shops given earlier to the petitioners. Aggrieved by this cancellation of the allotment made earlier to them, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the cancellation orders, Annexure D-l to D-12, dated 6-3-1982.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is admitted that 15 shops were allotted to private individuals because the two-Co-operative Societies, including respondent No. 3, had expressed in writing their inability to run more than two shops each. It is, however, alleged that the allotment of shops to private individuals including the petitioners was on a purely temporary basis, which was liable to cancellation at any time without any prior notice. It is contended that such a power to cancel the allotment without any prior notice was available under clause 14 of the agreement (Annexure-C) and, therefore, no grievance can be made by the petitioners.