# Smt. Chanda Devi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 265 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-09-11 - **Case number:** Writ - C No. 16750 of 2009 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-chanda-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46999 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India,1950 - Art.226 - Complainant - Locus standi - Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) - Complainant challenged order whereby the fair price shop licence of the respondent restored - Held - privity of contract between licencing authority and private respondent shall govern the field if the licence has been restored - complainant, does not enjoy the right to litigate the matter invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (Para 3) Dismissed. (E-4) List of Cases cited:- ## Text 4 All. Smt. Chanda Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 265 unprofitable, it is open to its members not to pursue the same. Article 19 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to require the Court to rework the terms of the contract which is proposed or compel a party to guarantee a particular rate of profit or return. 62. The submission with regard to Articles 21 and 38 is found to be bereft of substance since the Court has not been shown any decision of the State to discontinue the use of physical stamp altogether. The petitioner has also not brought forth any convincing material which may establish a shortage of physical stamp in the State or that any particular indent so placed by a licensed vendor was not honored. 63. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Court to frame any direction commanding the State to continue the system of physical stamping in perpetuity. That would clearly amount to treading in the field of policy, a province reserved for the Executive. It is ultimately for the appropriate Government to consider what quantity of physical stamps should be permitted to be in circulation. These are clearly not issues which this Court can either rule on or dictate while exercising its powers of judicial review. Q. CONCLUSION 64. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the conclusions recorded, I would dismiss the writ petition. 65. The papers may now be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for disposal of the writ petition in accordance with the Rules of the Court. ---------- (2021)04ILR A265 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. Writ - C No. 16750 of 2009 Smt. Chanda Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri K.N.Misra Constitution of India,1950 - Art.226 - Complainant - Locus standi - Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) - Complainant challenged order whereby the fair price shop licence of the respondent restored - Held - privity of contract between licencing authority and private respondent shall govern the field if the licence has been restored - complainant, does not enjoy the right to litigate the matter invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (Para 3) Dismissed. (E-4) List of Cases cited:- 1. Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & ors. Vs St. Of Maha & anr. (2003) 5 SCC 413 2. Utkal University Vs Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi AIR 1999 SC 943 3. Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs Govt of A.P. AIR (SC)-1966-0-828 266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 4. The Calcutta Gas Company Vs The State of W.B. & ors. (1962) Suppl. 3 SCR 1 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J. & Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents. Shri K. N. Mishra, leaned counsel for the respondent no. 6 is not present though the matter is called in the revised list. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th March, 2009 whereby the licence fair price shop of the respondent no. 6 has come to be restored with a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that complaint was not properly examination and the reasons assigns are not sufficient enough for restoring the licence of the fair price shop. 3. We find that while the writ petition was entertained by this Court under the order dated 10.4.2009 this Court had questioned the maintainability of the present writ petition and issued notices to the respondent no. 6, but declined to grant any interim stay order. The situation has not changed today either. The petitioner is at the most enjoys status a complainant who had a grievance regarding running of the fair price shop licence. The privity of the contract between licencing authority and the respondent no. 6 shall govern the field if the licence has come to be restored by the State-respondent in favour of respondent no. 6, the complainant, in our considered opinion does not enjoy the right to litigate the matter further invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in case of Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr (2003) 5 SCC 413 has held that in order to maintain writ petition one can have locus if he has legally enforceable right and that we do not find in the present case. Further invoking the principle laid down in the case of Utkal University vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi, AIR 1999 SC 943 petitioner herein since would not be benefited by cancellation of fair price shop licence, he cannot be aggrieved person to maintain the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the another judgment of the Apex Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao versus Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (SC)-1966-0-828. In support of his argument that he being a complainant has a right to file a writ petition challenging the order. 5. We have carefully studied the judgment and find that in that case the appellant's right to file petition was upheld on the ground that he was President of the Panchayat Samiti that formed a Committee headed by the same president to collect money/fund to establish a primary health centre and so the committee were trustees of the amount collected and further appellant in that capacity was dealing with officials regarding location of health centre. It is in the backdrop of the above facts peculiar to the said case that applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in an earlier judgment [The Calcutta Gas Company versus The State of West Bengal and others, (1962) Suppl. 3 SCR 1] the Court held that a personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest, it can also relate to an interest of trustee and even in exceptional case as the expression 4 All. Ajay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 267 'ordinarily' indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or opinion of the authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject matter thereof. 6. In the said above case the site of primary health centre was sought to be changed inspite of deposit of money by Committee that collected the fund and the land was also donated. The Court then applying the above principle held that appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order and petition, therefore, under Article 226 was maintainable. Thus, on facts of the above case cited by the petitioner is distinguishable and the judgment, in our considered opinion, is of no help to the petitioner. . 7. We further notice that in the present case there were a general complaint, including complaint of the petitioner and the authorities have duly applied their mind and in their well considered opinion they have found that there was no serious illegality in discharge of onerous duty of the distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find it to be an appropriate case where findings of fact so recorded by the authority should be judicially reviewed. 8. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. ---------- (2021)04ILR A267 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ - C No. 21887 of 2020 Ajay Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C Constitution of India,1950 - Part IX, Art.243D - Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 - Sections 6-A, 7-A, 18-A, 19-A - Reservation of Seats in Panchayat - Freedom Fighter - Reservation of seats in favour of dependents of freedom fighters- in elections of zila panchayat - Held - statutory provisions as contained in the Adhiniyam, 1961, as also the provisions under Article 243D do not contemplate the reservation of seats or the offices for dependents of freedom fighters - aim and object of the reservation policy contained in Part IX is to enable the marginalized sections of society namely the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, women, to participate in the process of democratic decentralization - No such rationale or nexus to support the claim for providing reservation to dependents of freedom fighters in Panchayat institutions could be pointed out before Court. (Para 22, 27) Dismissed. (E-4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri