PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the allotment of fair price shop made in favour of respondent No. 4 at village Bairghatta on 09.02.2012. Petitioner was allotted a fair price shop in the year 1982-83, which was valid up to 31.12.2011. The respondent No. 4 has submitted an application for allotment of fair price shop at village Bairghatta in the month of November, 2008. The Public Distribution Committee rejected the case of respondent No. 4 on 14.12.2010. Thereafter, a fresh application was submitted by the respondent No. 4 on 11.03.2011. It was recommended favourably by the Gram Panchayat, Bairghatta to the competent authority vide Annexure R-3 on 04.07.2011. Thereafter, the Public Distribution Committee in its meeting held on 19.08.2011 has again taken up the case of respondent No. 4 and decided to call for applications and to send the case of respondent No. 4 for relaxation of the norms to the State Government. A public notice was issued on 03.09.2011, whereby the applications were invited for opening a new fair price shop at village Bairghatta. The last date of receipt of applications was 23.09.2011. The respondent No. 4 has submitted his application on 22.09.2011 for allotment of fair price shop at village Bairghatta. The application was not complete in every respect as per requirement. However, the fact of the matter is that the case of respondent No. 4 was also sent for relaxation and the same was accorded on 17.12.2011, which led to the issuance of allotment of fair price shop vide letter, dated 09.02.2012. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the allotment of fair price shop in favour of respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the allotment of fair price shop has been made in favour of respondent No. 4 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Minister of Irrigation and Public Health, H.P. on 04.07.2011. He also argued that the application submitted by respondent No. 4 was not complete as per the requirement and the decision to relax the norms has already been taken on 19.08.2011, though the application of respondent No. 4 was received on 22.09.2011.

(2.) Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, learned Senior Advocate, for respondent No. 4 have supported the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and the records produced by the respondent-State carefully.