Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pyarelal Damodhar Dhargave, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28.12.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner (respondent no.2), which reversed the earlier order dated 6.10.1995 of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer had allotted a fair price shop at mouza Chokhla Mine, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara to the petitioner, finding him more suitable than respondent no.5. The Additional Commissioner, in appeal, found that respondent no.5 was the legal heir of the deceased fair price shop owner and that the Sub Divisional Officer had erred in not considering his claim as such. The High Court had directed status quo on 1.2.1996, and the petitioner continued to run the shop. The petitioner argued that under the Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991, legal heirs were not entitled to any preference, and such preference was introduced only by the revised norms on 26.12.1997. He also contended that respondent no.5 had subsequently obtained employment as a junior clerk at Mamta High School, Chikla, and was not interested in running the shop. The respondent no.5 argued that his salary was meagre and that the relevant date for determining entitlement was the date of allotment, not subsequent developments. The court considered the submissions and held that the Additional Commissioner's order was not erroneous. The court noted that the petitioner had been running the shop since 1996 under interim orders, but the legal position did not support his claim. The petition was dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated. The court directed that the respondent no.5 may apply for allotment in accordance with the prevailing rules and that the authorities would consider his application without being influenced by the dismissal of this petition.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Fair Price Shop Allotment - Preference to Legal Heirs - Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 - The court considered whether the legal heir of a deceased fair price shop owner was entitled to preference in allotment. The petitioner argued that the Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 did not provide any preference to legal heirs, and such preference was introduced only by the revised norms on 26.12.1997. The Additional Commissioner had reversed the Sub Divisional Officer's order allotting the shop to the petitioner, holding that the respondent no.5's claim as legal heir was not considered. The court examined the applicability of the resolutions and the relevance of subsequent employment of respondent no.5. Held that the Additional Commissioner's order was not erroneous and the petition was dismissed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in reversing the Sub Divisional Officer's order allotting a fair price shop to the petitioner, and whether the legal heir of a deceased shopkeeper is entitled to preference in allotment under the Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The interim orders are vacated. The respondent no.5 may apply for allotment of the fair price shop in accordance with the prevailing rules, and the authorities shall consider his application without being influenced by the dismissal of this petition.
Law Points
- Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 does not provide preference to legal heirs of deceased shopkeeper
- Government Resolution dated 26.12.1997 introduced such preference for first time
- subsequent employment of respondent no.5 is irrelevant for entitlement as on date of allotment
