# Smt. Jasoda v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 294
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-05-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 30085 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-jasoda-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45817
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Opening of an additional fair price shop
in Gram Panchyat - person who raises a
grievance, must show how he has suffered legal
injury - Existence of a legal right is a condition
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction -
person appointed to run the fair price shop -
appointed by the Government for proper
distribution of essential commodities at fair
prices to the public at large - objective - to
make essential commodities, which are bare
need of the public, available to the public at fair
prices - not to benefit certain individuals who
are engaged as agents nor such engagement
creates any fundamental or legal right in such
person to run the fair price shop.
(Para -17,18,20)

Petitioner challenged the order dated 5.12.2017
passed by the District Magistrate, rejecting the
petitioner's
application/representation
dated
7.11.2017 for opening of an additional fair price
shop in Gram Panchyat - direction to direct the
respondents to pass fresh order after taking a
fresh report from Block regarding present
population and the number of units with further
direction to the respondents that if the
population as well as number of units are more
than 20,000 at present, to permit the petitioner
to distribute the food grains after adjusting the
number of units of all fair price shop
keepers.(Para - 2)

B. Fair price shop - Five fair price shops
already in operation - no requirement of 6th
additional fair price shop as per the Government
Order - for that purpose there should be more
than 20000 units in the Gram Panchyats - total
units is 15858 - held - no order can be passed
directing the respondents to make a roving
inquiry for making fresh determination of
number of units considering alleged increase of
population for opening of a fair price shop for
the petitioner who has no legal or fundamental
right for engagement as an agent. (Para30,31,32,33)

HELD:- Petitioner has no fundamental or legal
right to be engaged as an agent nor any of her
legal rights has been infringed by order dated
5.12.2007 - order may be against the petitioner
as his representation has been rejected but the
order does not adversely affect any of her legal
or fundamental rights.(Para-26)

Petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,992 of 47,422. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._

294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be mutated over the revenue records.
Needless to add that the allotments made
in respect of the said lands, after passing
of the order dated 8.5.2008, cannot have
any effect.

26. The writ petitions are allowed in
terms of the said order.

27. The original records are being
returned to Shri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,
Standing Counsel.
----------
(2020)06ILR A294
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 30085 of 2018

Smt. Jasoda ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shravan Kumar Mishra, Sri O.P. Chaube

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Opening of an additional fair price shop
in Gram Panchyat - person who raises a
grievance, must show how he has suffered legal
injury - Existence of a legal right is a condition
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction -
person appointed to run the fair price shop -
appointed by the Government for proper
distribution of essential commodities at fair
prices to the public at large - objective - to
make essential commodities, which are bare
need of the public, available to the public at fair
prices - not to benefit certain individuals who
are engaged as agents nor such engagement
creates any fundamental or legal right in such
person to run the fair price shop.
(Para -17,18,20)

Petitioner challenged the order dated 5.12.2017
passed by the District Magistrate, rejecting the
petitioner's
application/representation
dated
7.11.2017 for opening of an additional fair price
shop in Gram Panchyat - direction to direct the
respondents to pass fresh order after taking a
fresh report from Block regarding present
population and the number of units with further
direction to the respondents that if the
population as well as number of units are more
than 20,000 at present, to permit the petitioner
to distribute the food grains after adjusting the
number of units of all fair price shop
keepers.(Para - 2)

B. Fair price shop - Five fair price shops
already in operation - no requirement of 6th
additional fair price shop as per the Government
Order - for that purpose there should be more
than 20000 units in the Gram Panchyats - total
units is 15858 - held - no order can be passed
directing the respondents to make a roving
inquiry for making fresh determination of
number of units considering alleged increase of
population for opening of a fair price shop for
the petitioner who has no legal or fundamental
right for engagement as an agent. (Para30,31,32,33)

HELD:- Petitioner has no fundamental or legal
right to be engaged as an agent nor any of her
legal rights has been infringed by order dated
5.12.2007 - order may be against the petitioner
as his representation has been rejected but the
order does not adversely affect any of her legal
or fundamental rights.(Para-26)

Petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed & ors. AIR (1976) SC 578

2. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of
Maharashtra & ors. (2013) 4 SCC 465

3. D.D.A. Vs Gaurav Kukreja (2015) 14 SCC 254

4. Director of Settlements, A.P. and ors. Vs M.R.
Apparao
and
anr.
(2002)
4
SCC
638
6 All. Smt. Jasoda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
295
5. Gopi Vs St. of U.P. (2007) 6 ADJ 2001 (DB)

6. Kallu Khan Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2008) 6 ADJ
453 DB

7. Smt. Uma Kumari Vs Asst. Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supply & ors. (2011) 29 LCD 1319

8. Sabbo Khatun Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2012 (30)
LCD 1968

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. By means of the present petition,
petitioner has challenged the order bearing
No. 705 ft0iw0v0@ek0m0U;k0@2017 dated
5.12.2017
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Mahoba,
District
Mahoba
(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) rejecting
the petitioner's application/representation
dated
7.11.2017
for
opening
of
an
additional
fair
price
shop
in
Gram
Panchyat, Jaitpur, District Mahoba. Prayer
has
also
been
made
to
direct
the
respondents to pass fresh order after taking
a fresh report from Block-Jaitpur regarding
present population and the number of units
with further direction to the respondents
that if the population as well as number of
units are more than 20,000 at present, to
permit the petitioner to distribute the food
grains after adjusting the number of units of
all fair price shop keepers.

3. The facts of the present case are
that initially one fair price shop in Gram
Panchyat Jaitpur was granted to Pratap
Kumar which was cancelled by order dated
07.01.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Kulpahar, District Mahoba.
Thereafter the said fair price shop was
allotted to the petitioner by order dated
4.5.2017 (Annexure No.2) after passing of
the resolution dated 24.4.2017 in the open
meeting
in
petitioner's
favour.
The
petitioner did not commit any irregularity
in distribution of essential commodities and
there were no complaints against her.

4. Pratap Kumar filed Writ C No.
32931 of 2017 (Pratap Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and another) against the order of
cancellation dated 7.1.2017 which was
allowed by this Court vide judgment and
order dated 31.7.2017 (Annexure No.3)
whereby the order dated 7.1.2017 was
quashed and the respondents were directed
to restore the licence of the petitioner
therein/Pratap Kumar and to resume supply
to his shop forthwith. The Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Kulpahar by order dated
18.9.2017 restored the allotment of the fair
price shop of Pratap Kumar in compliance
of the order of this Court dated 31.7.2017
and by the same order the allotment which
was made in favour of Smt. Jasoda Devi
(present petitioner) on 15.5.2017 was also
stayed till further orders. The present
petitioner thereafter filed Writ C No. 49901
of 2017 (Smt. Jasoda Devi Vs. State of U.P.
and 4 others) in which this Court passed the
order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-5.),
without entering into the merits of the order
dated 18.9.2017, directing the District
Magistrate to decide the representation of
the petitioner filed against the order dated
18.9.2017.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed
representation dated 7.11.2017 before the
District-Magistrate,
District-Mahoba,
(Annexure No.6), for opening of an
additional fair price shop (6th shop) and to
restore
the
supply
of
the
essential
commodities to her after allocation of equal
units to all the fair price shops. This
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
representation of the petitioner was rejected
by the District Magistrate-Mahoba by
means of the order dated 5.12.2017
(Annexure No.7), under challenge in the
present writ petition.

6. This petition was filed on
31.8.2018. This Court by order dated
5.9.2018 granted time to the learned
Standing
Counsel
to
file
counter
affidavit. The petitioner was granted
time to file rejoinder affidavit. It was
made clear that the question of laches
shall remain open.

7. The learned Standing Counsel filed
counter affidavit and raised a plea in
paragraph 13 thereof that the writ petition
should be dismissed on the ground of delay.
However, at the time of hearing the learned
Standing Counsel did not press the plea of
laches and submitted that the matter may be
heard on merits.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that there is some delay in
filing writ petition but the same was caused
as the petitioner was trying to collect some
documents about the existing population of
Gram Panchyat-Jaitpur and to ascertain at
what ratio the population in the concerned
gram panchyat increased. The petitioner
obtained
the
letter
dated
6.11.2008
(Annexure No.1) according to which the
population of Gram Panchyat-Jaitpur in the
year 2008 was about 22000/- and thereafter
the petitioner approached this Court and in
view thereof the bonafide delay deserve to
be condoned.

9. Being satisfied with the explanation
offered in the writ petition the Court hereby
condones the latches in filing the present
petition and proceeds to decide the matter
on merits.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the order impugned is
vitiated and deserves to be quashed as the
population of Gram Panchyat Jaitpur is
about 25000 as per the letter dated
6.11.2008 of the District Magistrate, sent to
the Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow in
which it is mentioned that as the population
in Gram Panchyat Jaitpur was 15976 and in
2008 after increase @ 5% annually, the
population is 21970. His submission is that
in view of the letter dated 6.11.2008, taking
the annual increase in the population @
5%, the population of Gram Panchyat
Jaitpur would be about 25,000 in 2017 but
in the impugned order the population
mentioned is 18783. He has submitted that
the number of ration cards are about more
than 4000 and the number of units are more
than 21000.

11. The learned Standing Counsel has
supported the order dated 5.12.2017 on the
ground it has been passed. He has
submitted that as per the last census of
2011 the population was 18783 which is
verified from letter No. 4/398/20144/53/2014 sent by the Director, Panchyati
Raj, U.P., Lucknow to all the District
Magistrates of the State of U.P. (annexure
No.CA-1). He has further submitted that as
per the Government Order No. 2715/29-62002-162
Sa/2001
dated
17.8.2002
(Annexure No.CA2) if any Gram Panchyat
has more than 4000 units then opening of
more than one fair price shop can be
considered. However, as in the concerned
gram panchyat, as per the eligibility list of
National Food Security Act (Annexure
No.CA3) uptill 9.10.2018 there were total
number of 3854 ration cards including of
all the categories, comprising 15858 units
and as 5 fair price shops were already
existing and were operational, no additional
fair price shop could be opened as per the
6 All. Smt. Jasoda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
297
government order on the subject under
which unit is the criterion and not the
population. He has next submitted that the
petitioner is also not an aggrieved person to
maintain the writ petition.

12. I have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Standing
Counsel and have perused the records.

13. The matter which requires first
consideration is as to whether the petitioner
is an aggrieved person to maintain the writ
petition against the order dated 5.12.2017
and in this respect it would be appropriate
to have a look at some judgments on the
point as to who is the ''person aggrieved' to
maintain the writ petition.

14. In the case of Jasbhai Motibhai
Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir
Ahmed and others AIR 1976 SC 578 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person
aggrieved must be a man who has suffered
a legal grievance, a man against whom a
decision has been pronounced which has
wrongfully deprived him of something or
wrongfully refused him something or
wrongfully affected his title to something.
The relevant paragraph Nos. 27, 29, 33, 46
and 47 of the said report are being
reproduced as under:

"27.
In
Bar
Council
of
Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar [1975] 2
SCC 703=(AIR 1975 SC 2092) a Bench of
seven learned Judges of this Court
considered the Question whether the Bar
Council of a State was a 'person aggrieved'
to maintain an appeal under Section of the
Advocates' Act, 1961. Answering the
question in the affirmative , this Court,
speaking through Ray C.J. indicated how
the expression "person aggrieved" is to be
interpreted in the context of a statute, thus:

The meaning of the words "a
person, aggrieved" may vary according to
the context of the statute. One of the
meanings is that a person will be held to be
aggrieved by a decision if that decision is
materially adverse to him. Normally, one is
required to establish that one has been
denied or deprived of something to which
one is legally entitled in order to make one
"a person aggrieved". Again a person is
aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on
him. The meaning of the words "a person
aggrieved" is sometimes given a restricted
meaning in certain statutes which provide
remedies for the protection of private legal
rights. The restricted meaning requires
denial or deprivation of legal rights. A
more liberal approach is required in the
background of statutes which do not deal
with
property
rights
but
deal
with
professional conduct and morality. The role
of the Bar Council under the Advocates' Act
is comparable to the role of a guardian in
professional ethics. The words "person
aggrieved" in Sections 37 and 38 of the Act
are of wide import and should not be
subjected to a restricted interpretation of
possession or denial of legal rights or
burdens or financial interests.

29. Typical of the cases in which
a strict construction was put on the
expression "person aggrieved", is Buxton v.
Minister of Housing and Local Govt. .
There, an appeal by a Company against the
refusal of the Local Planning Authority of
permission to develop land owned by the
Company by digging chalk, was allowed by
the Minister. Owners of adjacent property
applied to the High Court under Section
31(1) of the Town and Country Planning
Act, 1959 to quash the decision of the
Minister on the ground that the proposed
operations by the company would injure
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their land and that they were 'persons
aggrieved' by the action of the Minister. It
was held that the expression 'person
aggrieved' in a statute meant a person who
had suffered a legal grievance; anyone
given the right under Section 37 of the Act
of
1959
to
have
his
representation
considered by the Minister was a person
aggrieved, thus Section applied, If those
rights were infringed; but the applicants
had no right under the statute and no legal
rights had been infringed and therefore
they were not entitled to challenge the
Minister's decision, Salmon J. quoted with
approval these observations of James LJ in
Re Sidebothem .

"The words 'person aggrieved' do
not really mean a man who is disappointed
of a benefit which he might have received if
some other order had been made. A 'person
aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered
a legal grievance, a man against whom a
decision has been pronounced which has
wrongfully deprived him of something or
wrongfully refused him something, or
wrongfully affected his title to something."

33. This Court has laid down in a
number of decisions that in order to have
the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 an applicant
should ordinarily be one who has &
personal or individual right in the subjectmatter of the application, though in the
case of some of the writs like habeas
corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed
or modified. In other words, as a general
rule, infringement of some legal right or
prejudice to some legal interest inhering in
the petitioner is necessary to give him a
locus standi in the matter-(See State of
Orissa v. Madan Gopal, 1952 SCR28=
(AIR 1952 SC 12); Calcutta Gas Co. v.
State of West Bengal, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 1=
(AIR 1962 SC 1044); Ram Umeshwari
Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue
Orissa
(1967)
1
SCA
413;
Gadda
Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828; State
of Orissa Vs. Rajasaheb Chandanmall, AIR
1972 SC 2112; Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v.
S. Lal & Co. AIR 1973 SC 2720.

46. Thus, in substance, the
appellant's stand is that the setting up of a
rival cinema house in the town will
adversely
affect
his
monopolistic
commercial interest, causing pecuniary
harm
and
loss
of
business
from
competition. Such harm or Loss is not
wrongful in the eye of law, because it does
not result in injury to a legal right or a
legally protected interest, the business
competition causing it being a lawful
activity.
Juridically,
harm
of
this
description is called demnum sine injuria,
the term injuria being here used in its true
sense of an act contrary to law(1). The
reason why the law suffers a person
knowingly to inflict harm of this description
on
another,
without
holding
him
accountable for it, is that such harm done
to an individual is a gain to society at
large.

47. In the light of the above
discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the
appellant has not been denied or deprived
of a legal right. He has not sustained injury
to any legally protected interest. In fact, the
impugned order does not operate as a
decision against him, much less does it
wrongfully affect his title to something. He
has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He
has suffered no legal grievance. He 'has no
legal peg for' a justiciable claim to hang
on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved'
and has no locus standi to challenge the
grant of the No-objection Certificate.

15. In the case of Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others reported in
6 All. Smt. Jasoda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
299
(2013) 4 SCC 465 the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under in Paragraph Nos. 9 to 12 and
17 which are being reproduced as follows:

9. It is a settled legal proposition
that a stranger cannot be permitted to
meddle in any proceeding, unless he
satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls
within the category of the aggrieved
persons.

Only a person who has suffered,
or suffers from legal injury can challenge
the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable either for the
purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal
right, or when there is a complaint by the
appellant that there has been a breach of
statutory duty on the part of the authorities.
Therefore,
there
must
be
judicially
enforceable
right
available
for
enforcement, on the basis of which writ
jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of
course, enforce the performance of a
statutory duty by a public body, using its
writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person
provided that such person satisfies the
Court that he has a legal right to insist on
such performance. The existence of such
right is a condition precedent for invoking
a writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is
implicit
in
the
exercise
of
such
extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief
prayed for must be one to enforce a legal
right. Infact, the existence of such right, is
the foundation of the exercise of the said
jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right
that can be enforced must ordinarily be the
right of the appellant himself, who
complains of infraction of such right and
approaches the Court for relief as regards
the same. (Vide:State of Orissa Vs. Madan
Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir
Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC
728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary)
Ltd Vs. State of west Bengal & others, AIR
1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders
Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar &
Others, (2009) 2 SCC 784).

10. A "legal right", means an
entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus,
it may be defined as an advantage, or a
benefit conferred upon a person by the rule
of law. The expression, "person aggrieved"
does not include a person who suffers from
a psychological or an imaginary injury; a
person
aggrieved
must
therefore,
necessarily be one, whose right or interest
has been adversely affected or jeopardised.
(Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home
Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC
1719; and State of Rajasthan & Others v.
Union of India & Others, AIR 1977 SC
1361.

11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka
Vs. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC
1289, a similar view was taken by this
Court, observing that, if a person claiming
relief is not eligible as per requirement,
then he cannot be said to be a person
aggrieved regarding the election or the
selection of other persons.

12. In A. Subhash Babu v. State of
A.P., AIR 2011 SC 3031, this Court held:

"The
expression
''aggrieved
person' denotes an elastic and an elusive
concept. It cannot be confined within the
bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive
definition. Its scope and meaning depends
on diverse, variable factors such as the
content and intent of the statute of which
contravention is alleged, the specific
circumstances of the case, the nature and
extent of complainant's interest and the
nature and the extent of the prejudice or
injury suffered by the complainant."
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. In the case of Delhi Development
Authority (2015) 14 SCC 254 the Hon'ble
Apex Court held as under in Paragraph No.
19 which is being reproduced as follows:

19. In Director of Settlements,
Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. M.R. Apparao
and Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638, while
considering the scope of the power of High
Court to issue a writ of mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court
has held as under:

"17. ....It is, therefore essentially,
a power upon the High Court for issuance
of high prerogative writs for enforcement of
fundamental rights as well as nonfundamental or ordinary legal rights, which
may come within the expression "for any
other purpose". The powers of the High
Courts under Article 226 though are
discretionary and no limits can be placed
upon their discretion, they must be
exercised along the recognised lines and
subject to certain self-imposed limitations.
The expression "for any other purpose" in
Article 226, makes the jurisdiction of the
High Courts more extensive but yet the
Courts must exercise the same with certain
restraints and within some parameters. One
of the conditions for exercising power
under Article 226 for issuance of a
mandamus is that the Court must come to
the conclusion that the aggrieved person
has a legal right, which entitles him to any
of the rights and that such right has been
infringed..."

17. In view of the above, the law on
the said point can be summarized to the
effect that a person who raises a grievance,
must show how he has suffered legal injury.
Generally, a stranger having no right
whatsoever to any post or property, cannot
be permitted to intervene in the affairs of
others.

18. It has thus been settled that as a
general rule inringement of some legal
right or prejudice to some legal interest
inhering in the petitioner is necessary to
give him a locus standi in the matter.
Existence of a legal right is a condition
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction.
The legal right that can be enforced must
ordinarily be the right of the petitioner
himself who complains of a fraction of
such
right.
Legal
right
means
an
entitlement arising out of legal rules. If the
person claiming relief is not eligible as per
the requirement, he cannot be said to be a
person aggrieved. Further, mere harm or
loss is not wrongful in the eye of law unless
it results in injury to a legal right or legally
protected interest.

19. Now it requires consideration if
the petitioner has any legal right or a
legally protected interest to which any
harm has been caused and for enforcement
of such legal right the present writ petition
can be maintained.

20. A person appointed to run the fair
price shop is appointed by the Government
for
proper
distribution
of
essential
commodities at fair prices to the public at
large. The objective is to make essential
commodities, which are bare need of the
public, available to the public at fair prices.
The engagement of the agents is the means
to achieve that goal. The object is not to
benefit certain individuals who are engaged
as agents nor such engagement creates any
fundamental or legal right in such person to
run the fair price shop. Such persons have
no fundamental or legal right to deal with
the essential commodities on behalf of the
government for its distribution.
6 All. Smt. Jasoda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
301

21. In the case of Gopi Vs. State of
U.P. 2007 (6) ADJ 2001 (DB) this Court
held as under:

"25. Realising the importance of the
Public Distribution System, Parliament while
bringing
about
the
73rd
constitutional
amendment included the Public Distribution
System as one of the primary functions of the
Gram Panchayat and it has been incorporated
in Article 243-G of Part 9 of the Constitution.
The Public Distribution System is obviously an
avowed function of the State in order to ensure
the distribution of essential commodities fairly.
The object is clearly to provide benefit to the
public at large in order to ensure supply of
essential commodities which is necessary for
the sustenance of daily life. The aforesaid
object, therefore, has to be fulfilled keeping in
view the intention of the legislature which is to
promote
public
awareness
and
ensure
distribution of essential commodities. In
essence, the object is to provide benefit to the
public at large. As a necessary corollary to the
same, the object is not to set up any trade for
the benefit of any individual. It may be that by
virtue of this licensing system, an individual
also gets the opportunity to benefit himself by
setting up a fair price distribution unit.
However, such a licence does not fall within the
category of a fundamental right to carry on
trade and business as understood under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The
Government Order which has been issued
under
the
provisions
of
the
Essential
Commodities Act, is to regulate the supply and
distribution of essential commodities fairly."

22. In the case of Kallu Khan Vs. State
of U.P. and another [2008 (6) ADJ 453 (DB)]
this Court held as under:

"19. It would be appropriate to
consider the basic idea of distribution of
essential commodities under the 1955 Act
and the system of appointment of agents in
furtherance of discharge of the aforesaid
function. It cannot be disputed that even
before 73rd Amendment of the Constitution
the
Government
has
undertaken
the
responsibility of distribution of essential
commodities to public at large at controlled
or fair price. The purpose of the said
responsibility is obvious. The majority of
the citizens in the country live either below
poverty live or almost at par or little above
thereof. They are not able to meet their two
times meals by the meagre income they
earn and, therefore, the market forces, if
are allowed to operate freely without any
protection to such persons, probably
majority of such people would be forced to
die of starvation and they may not be able
to survive at all. This experience we had
even before independence and immediately
after independence when the hoarders
created a situation of scarcity of food items
causing virtual revolution in different parts
of the country at times. Various social and
welfare measure were taken by the then
Government and one of the major decisions
taken with the intervention of Parliament is
enactment of 1955 Act conferring power
upon
the
Government
to
control
production, supply and distribution of, and
trade
and
commerce
in
certain
commodities,
namely,
essential
commodities as defined under Section 2(1)
of 1955 Act. Therefore, the basic idea and
intention of the legislature under the Act is
to make available essential commodities to
the public at large at fair price except of
the cases where the availability and
equitable distribution would be necessary
for defence of India or for any efficient
conduct of military operations. The Act
intends to provide welfare measure for
availability of essential commodities to
public at large at fair price and rest of the
machinery or mechanism is incidental for
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
achieving
the
aforesaid
goal.
The
appointment of fair price shop dealers,
therefore, as such, is not the primary
objective of 1955 Act but it is a channel by
which the objective of making essential
commodities available to public at large at
fair price is to be achieved. It is always
permissible and open to the Government to
make the essential commodities available
to public at large at fair price through the
agencies or instrumentalities of its own
namely, its own officers or officials or by
creating
a
department
or
alike.
Simultaneously, instead of undertaking the
said job on its own it can discharge the
aforesaid
obligation
through
private
persons or bodies by appointing them as its
agents. Bereft of the authority conferred
upon such agents by the Government for
distribution of essential commodities at fair
price, such persons had no fundamental or
legal right of dealing with such essential
commodities on behalf of the Government
to distribute to public at large the essential
commodities at fair prices, though on their
own, in their private capacity, it is always
open to them to make the commodities
which are essential commodities under the
Act available to public at large at fair price
without having any corresponding burden
upon the Government if there is no
otherwise prohibition under any other law
and the statutory provisions otherwise
controlling the production, storage etc. of
such essential commodities are observed by
them."

23. Indisputably, the petitioner was
allotted fair price shop by order dated
4.5.2017 for the interregnum period i.e. in
the vacancy caused due to cancellation of
fair price shop allotted to Pratap Kumar.
The order of the petitioner itself provided
that it was subject to the orders passed by
the competent court in the pending cases
which shall be binding on the petitioner
and, as such, the writ petition filed by
Pratap Kumar having been allowed, the
petitioner's allotment came to an end for
which the order dated 18.9.2017 was
passed.

24. In the case of Smt. Uma Kumari
Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Food &
Civil Supply and others reported in 2011
(29) LCD 1319, in which an interregnum
arrangement made in favour of the
petitioner therein was brought to an end as
the appeal of the original allottee was
allowed, this Court held that such person
(the subsequent allottee) was not an
''aggrieved person' as he was not deprived
of any of his legal entitlement. Paragraph
Nos. 5,6,7 and 8 are being reproduced as
under:

"5. While entertaining the writ
petition, this Court vide order dated
27.5.2005 provided that fair price shop
license of the petitioner would not be
cancelled on the ground that license of
opposite party No.4 has been restored. In
this regard, it is mentioned that it is an
interregnum arrangement and once the
appeal has been decided in favour of the
opposite party no.4, the petitioner has no
locus to file the instant writ petition.
Furthermore, the petitioner is not an
aggrieved
party.
As
the
judicial
proceedings have come to an end and the
order passed by the Appellate Authority
attains finality, no relief can be granted to
the petitioner.

6. According to my opinion, a
person aggrieved means a person who is
wrongly deprived of his entitlement which
he is legally entitled to receive and it does
not include any kind of disappointment or
personal
inconvenience.
''Person
6 All. Smt. Jasoda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
303
aggrieved' means a person who is injured
or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.

7. It is settled law that a person
who suffers from legal injury only can
challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing
a writ petition. Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is maintainable for
enforcing a statutory or legal right or when
there is a complaint by the petitioner that
there is a breach of the statutory duty on
the part of the authorities. Therefore, there
must be a judicially enforceable right for
the
enforcement
of
which
the
writ
jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court
can enforce the performance of a statutory
duty by public bodies through its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person,
provided such person satisfied the Court
that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of the said
right is the condition precedent to invoke
the writ jurisdiction. [Utkal university etc.
vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and
others.
(AIR
1999
SC
943)
and
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and others v.
State of Maharashtra and another (2003) 5
SCC 413.

8. Legal right is an averment of
entitlement arising out of law. It is, in fact,
an advantage or benefit conferred upon a
person by a rule of law [Shanti Kumar R.
Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York,
(AIR 1974 SC 1719) and State of Rajasthan
v. Union of India and others, (AIR 1977 SC
1361)]."

25. Similarly in the case of Sabbo
Khatun Vs. State of U.P. and others reported
in 2012 (30) LCD 1968 it was held as under in
paragraph Nos 6 and 7 of the said judgment:

6. In support of his submission,
learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the
case reported in [2009 (74) ALR 61], Sri Pal
Jatav vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the
Division Bench of this Court has observed that
on account of cancellation of licence of the Fair
Price Shop of opposite party no.3, the petitioner
was permitted to run the Fair Price Shop as a
stop gap arrangement and since the licence of
the opposite party no.3 has been restored, the
petitioner evidently cannot be permitted to run
the Fair Price Shop in question any longer and
the same would now be run by the opposite
party no.3.

7. This Court has also expressed the
view in its judgment reported in 2011 (29) LCD
626, Sita Devi vs. Commissioner, Lucknow and
others (W.P.No.1436 (M/S) of 2008) that a
person appointed to run the Fair Price Shop, as
an interim arrangement during pendency of
appeal, has no locus standi. The relevant para7 is being reproduced below:-

"So far as the grievance of the
opposite party no.3 is concerned, he has no
locus, as he was appointed during the period
interregnum, when the appeal of the petitioner
was pending and will only be a temporary
arrangement, whether such arrangement was
made by following due process of making
regular arrangement or otherwise on the
discretion of the opposite party no.2 and, as
such, the opposite party no.3 has no locus to
defend the order passed by the authorities."

Having considered the matter in all,
its pros and cons, I am of the view that the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted. As is evident
from the narration of the facts given above, the
licence was given to the opposite party no.4 for
running the Fair Price Shop in question and on
account of cancellation of licence of the Fair
Price Shop of opposite party no.4, the petitioner
was permitted to run the Fair Price Shop as a
stop gap arrangement. As licence of the
opposite party no.4 has been restored by the
order dated 09.08.2012, the petitioner evidently
cannot be permitted to run the Fair Price Shop
in question any longer and the same is to be run
by the opposite party no.4."
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. Thus considered I find that the
petitioner has no fundamental or legal
right to be engaged as an agent nor any of
her legal rights has been infringed by
order dated 5.12.2007. The petitioner
cannot be said to be a person aggrieved
from the order dated 5.12.2017 as it does
not
infringe
any
of
her
legal
or
fundamental rights. Although, by the
impugned order dated 5.12.2017 the
petitioner's
representation
has
been
rejected but the criteria to determine if a
person is ''aggrieved person' is if the
impugned order infringes or takes away
any of the fundamental or legal rights or
legally protected interests and not mere
rejection of the representation. The order
may be against the petitioner as his
representation has been rejected but the
order does not adversely affect any of her
legal or fundamental rights.

27. So far as the submission of the
petitioner's counsel, based on the letter
dated
6.11.2008
(Annexure
No.1)
is
concerned, that in 2008 the population in
Gram Panchyat Jaitpur was 15976 and
taking the increase at the rate of 5%
annually the population would be 21970 in
the year 2011 and about 25000 in 2017 and
consequently the number of units in the
gram panchyat must have also increased,
the same deserves to be rejected inasmuch
as the criterion for opening of an additional
fair price shop in the concerned Gram
Panchyat, as per the Government Order
bearing number 2715/29.6.2002-162/2002
dated 17.8.2002, is the number of units in
the concerned Gram Panchyat and not the
population.

28. The Government Order dated
17.8.2002 is being reproduced as under:-

"स० 2715/296-2002-162सा०/2001

प्रेिक,

श्री खंजन लाल

प्रिुख सतचि,

उ०प्र० शासन।

सेिा िें,

1. सिस्त तजलातधकारी उिर
प्रिेश

2. सिस्त तजलापूतिग अतधकारी
उिर प्रिेश।

खाद्य िथा रसि अनुभाग-6 लखनऊः
तिनांक 17 अगस्त, 2002

तिियः- सािगजतनक तििरण प्रणाली के
अन्तगगि ग्रािीण क्षेत्र की उतचि िर की
िुकानों के आिंिन िें ििगिान आरक्षण
व्यिस्था कायागब्लिि तकये जाने हेिु आिंिन
प्रारम्भ तकये जाने हेिु नीति-तनिेश।

िहोिय,

उपरोक्त के सम्बन्ध िें शासनािेश
संख्या-
112/29-6-2002-162
सा०/2001
तिनांक 10 जनिरी, 2001 का सन्दभग लेने
का कष्ट करें तजसके द्वारा राशन की
िुकानों/पेिी
डीजल
डीलसग
की
तनयुब्लक्त/आिंिन को स्थतगि रखने के तनिेश
तिये गये थे।

2. इस सम्बन्ध िें िुझे आपसे यह
कहना का तनिेश हुआ है तक तिधायी
अनुभाग-1
की
अतधसूचना
संख्या-
919/सत्रह-ति-1-2(क)-3-2002, तिनांक 06
जून, 2002 को दृतष्टगि रखिे हुए शासनािेश
संख्या- 2227/29-6-2001-162 सा०/2001,
तिनांक 09 अक्टूबर, 2001 को अतिक्रतिि
करिे हुए उतचि िर की िुकानों के
आिंिन/चयन हेिु तनम्न आरक्षण व्यिस्था
6 All. Smt. Jasoda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
305
ित्काल प्रभाि से पुनगस्थातपि/लागू की जािी
हैः-

1- अनुसूतचि जाति -

21
प्रतिशि

2- अनुसूतचि जनजाति - 02
प्रतिशि

3- अन्य तपछड़े िगग -

27
प्रतिशि

3.
उपयुगक्तानुसार
आरतक्षि
श्रेतणयों िें तनम्नतलब्लखि होररजेन्टल आरक्षण
भी अनुिन्य होगा--

(क) सम्बब्लन्धि आरतक्षि श्रेणी की
ितहलाओ को 20 प्रतिशि

(ख) सम्बब्लन्धि आरतक्षि श्रेणी के लड़ाई
िें िारे गये सैतनक के पररिार के सिस्य
लड़ाई िें घायल हुए सैतनक के पररिार के
सिस्य, भूिपूिग सैतनक 08 प्रतिशि।

(ग) सम्बब्लन्धि आरतक्षि श्रेणी के
स्विंत्रिा संग्राि सेनानी, उनकी पत्नी को 5
प्रतिशि।

(घ) सम्बब्लन्धि आरतक्षि श्रेणी के
तिकलांग व्यब्लक्तयों को 02 प्रतिशि

इस
शासनािेश
के
अनुसार
ििगिान िें ररक्त िुकानों िें आरक्षण के
प्रतिशि का ध्यान रखा जायेगा तकन्तु उक्त
प्रतिशि को पूणग करने के तलये ििगिान िें
चल रही िुकानों को तनरस्त नहीं तकया
जायेगा। यति कोई िुकान तकसी कारणिश
तनरस्त होिी है िब उस पर नई तनयुब्लक्त के
सिय इस शासनािेश के अनुसार आरक्षण
पूणग करने की कायगिाही की जायेगी।

4. (1) तिकास खण्ड को एक यूतनि
िानिे हुए िहसील िें आरक्षण की व्यिस्था
की गणना की जायेगी। प्रत्येक तिकास खण्ड
िें कुल स्वीकृि िुकानों िें प्रस्तर संख्या 2
एिं 3 के अनुसार आरक्षण की गणना िथा
तचन्हीकरण तकया जायेगा।

(2) जनसंख्या
के
अिरोही
क्रि
(तडसेतडंग आडगर) के अनुसार तजस प्रकार
पंचायिी राज व्यिस्था िें ग्राि प्रधान के पिों
िें आरक्षण व्यिस्था लागू की गई है, उसी
प्रकार आरक्षण की व्यिस्था िुकानों के
तचन्हााँकन िें लागू की जायेगी। ग्रािीण क्षेत्रों
िें राशन की िुकानों िें आरक्षण सुतनतिि
करने हेिु यही िुख्य आधार होगा।

(3) ििगिान िें कायगरि िुकानों की
यथाब्लस्थति बनाये रखिे हुए तजिनी ररब्लक्तयााँ
हैं उनिें आरक्षण की गणना तनम्नानुसार की
जायेगीः-

(क) कुल स्वीकृि िुकानों के सापेक्ष
आरक्षण 50 प्रतिशि िक ही तकया जायेगा।

(ख) भतिष्य िें आरतक्षि श्रेणी के
अन्तगगि तचब्लन्हि िुकानें जैसे-जैसे ररक्त
होिी जायेगी, उनका आिंिन उसी श्रेणी के
अभ्यातथगयों को तकया जायेगा।

(4) इस सम्बन्ध िें तिनांक 3.7.90 के
शासनािेश संख्या 3967/29- खाद्य-6 िें िी
गई शिे भी प्रभािी होगी और यति उपयुगक्त
शासनािेश की शिे िथा ििगिान शासनािेश
की तकसी शिग/प्रतिबन्ध िें तिरोधाभास हो िो
ििगिान शासनािेश की शिे एिं प्रतिबन्ध
प्रभािी होंगे।

5- ग्राणीण क्षेत्र िें राशन की िुकानों के
आिंिन हेिु तनम्नानुसार गतठि िहसील
स्तरीय सतिति द्वारा तकया जायेगाः-

1. उप तजला तधकारी -

अध्यक्ष

2.
सम्बब्लन्धि
खण्ड
तिकास
अतधकारी - सिस्य

3. अनुसूतचि जाति/जनजाति एिं
तपछड़ी- सिस्य
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

जाति का एक-एक अतधकारी जो