# M/S Triveni Engineering and Industies Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 326
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11792 of 2011
- **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Rajesh Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-triveni-engineering-and-industies-ltd-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41888
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-LocusStandee-Petitioner ex Fair Price Shop
dealer-after cancellation of license -
alloted
to
R-6-who
claimed
to
be
Schedule
cost
(Gond)-actually
a
Backward cost being 'Kahar'-admittedly
Petitioner not one of applicant after
cancellation-prayer
to
expedite
the
hearing
objection/complaint-held
can
not be issued-in absence of locusstandee.

Held: Para 6

Sri H.K.Asthana, learned counsel for the
petitioner has fairly stated that the
petitioner is not one of the applicant in
the fresh exercise of allotment of fairprice shop in question whereby the said
shop was allotted in favour of the
respondent no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi ).

## Text

326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
co-tenant is not barred in raising objections
under the Act, 1953.

4)The provisions of the Act, 1953,
being a special Act has an overriding effect
over other Acts for the time being in force
relating to adjudication of rights by tenure
holders contemplated under the Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 and it is the consolidation courts that
have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the
right, title and interest of claims relating to
land tenure upon a notification under
Section 4 of the Act.

5)Long standing entries which are
questioned in an objection filed under the
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 hold only a presumptory value
and they cannot be taken to be an absolute
proof for pressing the principle of estoppel,
acquiescence and waiver and no automatic
bar of Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is
attracted.

65. The reference dated 21/7/2009 is
answered accordingly.

66. Let the answers be placed before
the learned Single Judge for hearing the writ
petition.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,J.
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11792 of 2011

Chandrika Prasad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.K. Asthana
Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav
Sri Mahesh Narain Singh

Constitution of India-Article 226-LocusStandee-Petitioner ex Fair Price Shop
dealer-after cancellation of license -
alloted
to
R-6-who
claimed
to
be
Schedule
cost
(Gond)-actually
a
Backward cost being 'Kahar'-admittedly
Petitioner not one of applicant after
cancellation-prayer
to
expedite
the
hearing
objection/complaint-held
can
not be issued-in absence of locusstandee.

Held: Para 6

Sri H.K.Asthana, learned counsel for the
petitioner has fairly stated that the
petitioner is not one of the applicant in
the fresh exercise of allotment of fairprice shop in question whereby the said
shop was allotted in favour of the
respondent no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi ).

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The petitioner has filed the
present
Writ
Petition
making
the
following prayer:

i. Issue a writ , order of direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
concerned authority to decide the
matter pending regarding cancellation
of Caste Certificate dated 24.2.2010 (
Annexure No. 4 to this Writ Petition),
which has been obtained by the
respondent no.7, Smt. Sumitra Devi ,
wife of Sri Ramesh Chandra by fraud
and misrepresentation.
1 All] M/S Triveni Engineering and Industies Ltd. and another V. State of U.P. and another 327

ii. Issue a writ , order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
District
Magistrate
Maharajganj
(
Respondent no. 3) to take an appropriate
action in the matter, so that the illegality
prevailing regarding allotment of Fair
Price Shop in favour of respondent no. 7,
Smt. Sumitra Devi may be removed, which
has been allotted in her favour by Sub.
Divisional Magistrate , Maharajganj vide
order dated 22.12.2011 ( Annexure no. 5
to the Writ Petition ) relying on the
Scheduled Caste Certificate ( Anneuxre
no. 4 to the Writ Petition ) as Smt.
Sumitra Devi, wife of Sri Ramesh
Chandra ( respondent no. 7) belongs to
the caste "Kahar" ( O.B.C.) and not the "
Gond" ( Scheduled Caste ).

iii. Issue any other suitable writ and
just order which this Hon'ble Court may
deef fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.

iv. Allow the Writ Petition with
costs."

2. As per the averments made in the
Writ Petition, the petitioner was Ex-Fair
Price Shop dealer in question. The
agreement of the petitioner regarding the
Ex-Fair
Price
shop
dealership
was
cancelled. Thereafter, the said shop was
allotted to the respondent no.7 ( Smt.
Sumitra Devi ).

3. The petitioner has , thereupon ,
filed the present Writ Petition seeking the
reliefs mentioned above.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the Caste Certificate submitted by the
respondent no.7 (Smt. Sumitra Devi)
showing herself to be Caste 'Gond'
(Scheduled Tribe) was not correct. In fact ,
the respondent no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi )
belong to the caste 'Kahar ' (Other
Backward Classes).

5. We have heard Sri H.K.Asthana,
learned counsel for the petitioner , learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Gulab
Chandra holding brief for Sri Ashok
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondent no.7.

6. Sri H.K.Asthana, learned counsel
for the petitioner has fairly stated that the
petitioner is not one of the applicant in the
fresh exercise of allotment of fair-price
shop in question whereby the said shop
was allotted in favour of the respondent
no.7 ( Smt. Sumitra Devi ).

7. In the cirumstances, we are of the
opinion that petitioner has no locus-standi
to file the present Writ Petitioner seeking
the reliefs mentioned above.

8. The Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed on the said ground

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed on the said ground.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 17.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

Writ Petition No. 11959 (MB) of 2009

M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries
Ltd. and another
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents