Ram Sajiwan Kori v. State of U.P. and

1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the order impugned dated. 04.06.2025 passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh as well as the order impugned dated 30.07.2025 passed by Joint Commissioner (Food), Allahabad Division, Allahabad (Annexure No.11 & 13 to this writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of directing Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Prayagraj, to restore the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner in respect to Village Panchayat Udaipur, Block Development Sangipur, Tehsil-Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh."

3. Learned Senior Advocate contends that in the present case, the Supreme Court vide order dated 04.12.2017 had set-aside the order of the High Court and directed that the entire matter needs to be looked into afresh by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh particularly 2 WRIC No. 31081 of 2025 keeping in mind that there is no finding recorded by the Licensing Authority or even by the Appellate Authority that respondent no.6 was not running the fair price shop in accordance with the terms of the licence/allotment. The matter was remanded back to the S.D.M. concerned to take a final decision and until the final decision, respondent no.6 was directed to run the fair price shop. He next submits that thereafter, a fresh order came to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh on 24.01.2018, in which, after examination of the records and certain statements of the village card- holders, it was decided that the license given to respondent no.6 is cancelled and the petitioner herein would be allowed to run a fair price shop. Consequently, against the said order, an appeal was filed by the respondent no.6 which ultimately came to be dismissed vide order dated

13.09.2018 by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj and against the said dismissal order, respondent no.6 herein approached to the High Court by means of Writ-C No.40479 of 2018, " Ram Sajiwan Kori Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others" and the High Court vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2025, held that the order of Supreme Court had not been complied with the S.D.M. concerned and the Appellate Court had also not decided the issue in the proper perspective, therefore, order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the S.D.M. concerned and the order of Appellate Authority dated 13.09.2018 was set-aside. In the light of same, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh for taking decision afresh in the light of order of Supreme Court dated

04.12.2017.

4. After remand by the High Court, the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate again heard the matter and by means of order dated 04.06.2025 passed a detailed order. In the said order, the concerned S.D.M. has recorded a clear finding that with regard to charge of non- distribution of mid day meal, the charge is partially proved. However, the concerned S.D.M. instead of cancelling the license given in favour of respondent no.6 merely forfeited the security given by respondent no.6 and further issued a warning for future conduct.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the 3 WRIC No. 31081 of 2025 Commissioner, Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj. However, the same came to be dismissed on technical grounds by the Joint Commissioner (Foods), Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj on 30.07.2025 on the ground that in the Government Order No.15/2017/2292/ 29.06.2017-135Sa/15 dated

08.11.2017, it has been made clear that with regard to fair price shop in the cases of suspension, cancellation or appointment, an appeal is maintainable and with regard to restoration of allotment given to subsequent allottee, no appeal lies.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has specifically contended that once the finding has been recorded by the concerned S.D.M. that the charges against respondent no.6 for non-distribution of mid-day meal food grains for the month of February, 2006 has been partially proved, then there is no reason or occasion to issue a future warning only as the question of irregularities in the distribution of food-grains in the allotment has been proved.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 states that the charges were not proved against the petitioner and the order is perfectly valid and justified and needs no interference by this Court.

8. Looking into the limited issue as to whether the concerned S.D.M. could have restored the license in favour of respondent no.6 even though in the impugned order specific finding has been recorded that the charge has been partially proved, the matter requires consideration.

9. Notice has been accepted by learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel is representing respondent no.5.

10. Let all the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits within a period of three weeks.

11. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

12. Under the facts and circumstances where the limited issue has been raised in the writ petition, it would be appropriate that the concerned Authorities may allot fair price shop to the third party/receiver, who shall 4 WRIC No. 31081 of 2025 then run a fair price shop properly and ensure distribution of food grains to the card holders as well as under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The order qua the receiver shall be subject to the final orders passed in the writ petition.

13. List this matter on 13th January, 2026. November 20, 2025 Sumit S (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.)

1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the order impugned dated. 04.06.2025 passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh as well as the order impugned dated 30.07.2025 passed by Joint Commissioner (Food), Allahabad Division, Allahabad (Annexure No.11 & 13 to this writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of directing Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Prayagraj, to restore the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner in respect to Village Panchayat Udaipur, Block Development Sangipur, Tehsil-Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh."

3. Learned Senior Advocate contends that in the present case, the Supreme Court vide order dated 04.12.2017 had set-aside the order of the High Court and directed that the entire matter needs to be looked into afresh by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh particularly 2 WRIC No. 31081 of 2025 keeping in mind that there is no finding recorded by the Licensing Authority or even by the Appellate Authority that respondent no.6 was not running the fair price shop in accordance with the terms of the licence/allotment. The matter was remanded back to the S.D.M. concerned to take a final decision and until the final decision, respondent no.6 was directed to run the fair price shop. He next submits that thereafter, a fresh order came to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh on 24.01.2018, in which, after examination of the records and certain statements of the village card- holders, it was decided that the license given to respondent no.6 is cancelled and the petitioner herein would be allowed to run a fair price shop. Consequently, against the said order, an appeal was filed by the respondent no.6 which ultimately came to be dismissed vide order dated

13.09.2018 by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj and against the said dismissal order, respondent no.6 herein approached to the High Court by means of Writ-C No.40479 of 2018, " Ram Sajiwan Kori Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others" and the High Court vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2025, held that the order of Supreme Court had not been complied with the S.D.M. concerned and the Appellate Court had also not decided the issue in the proper perspective, therefore, order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the S.D.M. concerned and the order of Appellate Authority dated 13.09.2018 was set-aside. In the light of same, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh for taking decision afresh in the light of order of Supreme Court dated

04.12.2017.

4. After remand by the High Court, the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate again heard the matter and by means of order dated 04.06.2025 passed a detailed order. In the said order, the concerned S.D.M. has recorded a clear finding that with regard to charge of non- distribution of mid day meal, the charge is partially proved. However, the concerned S.D.M. instead of cancelling the license given in favour of respondent no.6 merely forfeited the security given by respondent no.6 and further issued a warning for future conduct.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the 3 WRIC No. 31081 of 2025 Commissioner, Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj. However, the same came to be dismissed on technical grounds by the Joint Commissioner (Foods), Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj on 30.07.2025 on the ground that in the Government Order No.15/2017/2292/ 29.06.2017-135Sa/15 dated

08.11.2017, it has been made clear that with regard to fair price shop in the cases of suspension, cancellation or appointment, an appeal is maintainable and with regard to restoration of allotment given to subsequent allottee, no appeal lies.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has specifically contended that once the finding has been recorded by the concerned S.D.M. that the charges against respondent no.6 for non-distribution of mid-day meal food grains for the month of February, 2006 has been partially proved, then there is no reason or occasion to issue a future warning only as the question of irregularities in the distribution of food-grains in the allotment has been proved.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 states that the charges were not proved against the petitioner and the order is perfectly valid and justified and needs no interference by this Court.

8. Looking into the limited issue as to whether the concerned S.D.M. could have restored the license in favour of respondent no.6 even though in the impugned order specific finding has been recorded that the charge has been partially proved, the matter requires consideration.

9. Notice has been accepted by learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel is representing respondent no.5.

10. Let all the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits within a period of three weeks.

11. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

12. Under the facts and circumstances where the limited issue has been raised in the writ petition, it would be appropriate that the concerned Authorities may allot fair price shop to the third party/receiver, who shall 4 WRIC No. 31081 of 2025 then run a fair price shop properly and ensure distribution of food grains to the card holders as well as under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The order qua the receiver shall be subject to the final orders passed in the writ petition.

13. List this matter on 13th January, 2026. November 20, 2025 Sumit S (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.)