# Lal Ji Saroj v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 125
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64246 of 2014
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar, Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lal-ji-saroj-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43075
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Settlement of license to run the fair price
shop-denial
by
mis-interpreting
G.O.
Dated 10.07.14-held-misconceived- G.O.
Relied in impugned order applicable
where Appeal pending-not where appeal
already
dismissed-pendency
of
writ
petition without interim order -not be
ground for refusal-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-7
We find that the Government Order
dated 10.07.2014 was only applicable in
126
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a case where the appeal was pending. In
the present case, the appeal has already
been
decided
and,
therefore,
this
Government Order is not applicable in the
present case. Further the Division Bench of
this Court, in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Supra), has held
that it is open to the State, pending disposal
of an appeal, to make suitable alternate
arrangements, either by attaching the card
holders to an existing fair price shop or by
allotting the fair price shop to a new
licencee, subject to the result of the appeal.
Therefore, there is no impediment now in
settling the fair price shop in favour of the
petitioner in pursuance of the resolution
passed
by
the
Gram
Panchayat
on
07.08.2013.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (8) ADJ, 1.

## Text

1 All] Lal Ji Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
125
"The Muslim Law permits marrying
four women. The personal law nowhere
mandates or dictates it as a duty to
perform four marriages. No religious
scripture or authority provides that
marrying less than four women or
abstaining from procreating a child from
each and every wife in case of permitted
bigamy or polygamy would be irreligious
or offensive to the dictates of the religion.
The question of the impugned provision of
Haryana Act being violative of Art. 25
does not arise."
21. The law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in case of
Dilbar Habad Siddiqui's Case (Supra) is
clearly
attracted
on
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case. In the
present set of facts the first wife of
petitioner no. 2 is surviving and from their
wedlock there are three children namely
respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 and the wife
(respondent no. 5) is said to have
pregnancy of about 8 months.
22. Apart from this the writ petition
is based on concealment of facts and false
averments. Fake paper have also been
filed with the writ petition.
23. Under the circumstances and
facts of the case this writ petition deserves
to be dismissed with heavy costs.
24. In result, the writ petition fails
and is, hereby, dismissed with costs or Rs.
50,000/- on the petitioner no. 2, which
shall be paid by him to the respondent no.
5 within two months.
25. The father of the petitioner no. 2
i.e. Riaz Ahmad is the person, who along
with his wife is presently looking after the
well being of the respondent nos. 5 to 8.
He expressed serious apprehension of
threat to his life and property by the
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4.
Under the circumstances it is provided
that if Sri Riaz Ahmad (father of the
petitioner no. 2) or respondent no. 5
approaches to the respondent no. 2 or
respondent no 3 in case of any threat to
their life or property then they shall take
effective steps in accordance with law.
26. The writ petition is dismissed
with
costs
of
Rs.
50,000/-
as
aforementioned.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64246 of 2014
Lal Ji Saroj
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Sri Ram Sheel
Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Settlement of license to run the fair price
shop-denial
by
mis-interpreting
G.O.
Dated 10.07.14-held-misconceived- G.O.
Relied in impugned order applicable
where Appeal pending-not where appeal
already
dismissed-pendency
of
writ
petition without interim order -not be
ground for refusal-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-7
We find that the Government Order
dated 10.07.2014 was only applicable in
126
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a case where the appeal was pending. In
the present case, the appeal has already
been
decided
and,
therefore,
this
Government Order is not applicable in the
present case. Further the Division Bench of
this Court, in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Supra), has held
that it is open to the State, pending disposal
of an appeal, to make suitable alternate
arrangements, either by attaching the card
holders to an existing fair price shop or by
allotting the fair price shop to a new
licencee, subject to the result of the appeal.
Therefore, there is no impediment now in
settling the fair price shop in favour of the
petitioner in pursuance of the resolution
passed
by
the
Gram
Panchayat
on
07.08.2013.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (8) ADJ, 1.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)
1. Heard Sri Ram Sheel Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Manoj
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no.4.
2.
By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the
respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Tehsil Machhali Shahar, district Jaunpur,
whereby the claim of the petitioner for the
settlement of the fair price shop, in his
favour, has been declined.
3. It appears that for the Gram Sabha
Kharuawan, one Sri Vimal Kumar was
the licencee of fair price shop. His licence
has been cancelled, against which appeal
has been filed, which has been dismissed.
Against the appellate order, Vimal Kumar
filed Writ Petition No.43701 of 2014,
Vimal Kumar Vs. State of U.P., which
has been entertained and the respondents
were directed to file counter affidavit. No
interim order has been passed. When, in
pursuance of the resolution, no step has
been taken by the respondent no.3 to
settle the fair price shop in his favour, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No.46772 of
2014, which has been disposed of on
03.09.2014 with the observation that in
view of the aforesaid development that
has taken place, it shall be open to the
petitioner to approach the Sub Divisional
Magistrate for disposal of the approval,
which is pending but any orders passed by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall be
subject to the orders under Government
Order dated 10.07.2014 or further order
being passed by this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition. After the order of
this Court, the petitioner approached Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Machhali
Shahar, district Jaunpur for consideration
of his claim for the settlement of fair price
shop. By the impugned order, the claim of
the petitioner has been rejected by the
respondent
no.3
relying
upon
the
Government Order dated 10.07.2014 with
the observation that during the pendency
of the appeal, to avoid multiplicity of the
disputes, new fair price shop could not be
settled and, therefore, it would not be
appropriate to settle the fair price shop in
favour of the petitioner in pursuance of
the resolution dated 07.08.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Government Order
dated 10.07.2014 is applicable only till
the disposal of the appeal before the
Divisional
Commissioner.
It
is
not
applicable after the disposal of the appeal.
In the present case, the appeal of Vimal
Kumar has been dismissed. Therefore, the
aforesaid Government Order is not
applicable in the present case. He further
submitted that recently a Government
1 All] Ali Shad Usmani & Ors. Vs. Ali Isteba & Ors.
127
Order has been issued by the Principal
Secretary on 18.11.2014 asking the
Divisional Commissioners to settle the
vacant shop as early as possible. He
further submitted that Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014
(8) ADJ, 1 has observed that it is open to
the State, pending disposal of an appeal,
to make suitable alternate arrangements
either by attaching the card holders to an
existing fair price shop or by allotting the
fair price shop to a new licencee subject
to the result of the appeal. Therefore, in
view of the aforesaid decision of the
Division Bench of this Court, the order of
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
is
not
sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
5.
Learned
Standing
Counsel
submitted that let the respondent no.3, Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Machhali
Shahar, district Jaunpur be directed to pass a
fresh order in the light of the Government
Order dated 18.11.2014 and the Division
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Supra).
6.

We
have
considered
the
submissions and perused the record.
7. We find that the Government
Order
dated
10.07.2014
was
only
applicable in a case where the appeal was
pending. In the present case, the appeal
has already been decided and, therefore,
this Government Order is not applicable
in the present case. Further the Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of Vinod
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Supra), has held that it is open to the
State, pending disposal of an appeal, to
make suitable alternate arrangements,
either by attaching the card holders to an
existing fair price shop or by allotting the
fair price shop to a new licencee, subject
to the result of the appeal. Therefore,
there is no impediment now in settling the
fair price shop in favour of the petitioner
in pursuance of the resolution passed by
the Gram Panchayat on 07.08.2013.
8. In view of the above, the writ
petition
is
allowed.
Order
dated
29.10.2014 passed by the respondent
no.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Machhali Shahar, district Jaunpur is set
aside and the matter is relegated to the
respondent no.3 to consider the claim of
the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two weeks from the
date of presentation of the certified copy
of this order, in the light of the
observation and direction given above, in
accordance to law.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68168 of 2006
Ali Shad Usmani & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Ali Isteba & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jamil Ahmad Azmi
Counsel for the Respondents:
---
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226/227Direction for expeditious disposal of suitshould be issued with very care and
circumspection-other wise Civil Court will