1 19 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6322/2005. Amarpura Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, Chang, Distt. Pali Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 14th October 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. B.S. Mertia, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Lohiya, GC, for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, for the respondent No.4. ..... BY THE COURT: Upon taking up of this matter for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been supplied with a copy of the additional affidavit as filed by the respondent No.4 today only and prayed for some time. However, looking to the subject matter of this petition and for the reply submissions having already been filed by the contesting respondents, the matter was proceeded with while ignoring the so-called additional affidavit said to have been filed today in the Registry. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider any interference in this matter in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner, said to be a Co-operative Society, filed this writ petition on 19.10.2005 seeking to challenge the 2 authorisation issued to the respondent No. 4 on 30.07.2005 (Annex.4) as a fair price shopkeeper at village Chang, Panchyat Samiti Raipur, District Pali under the decision of the Allotment Advisory Committee dated 19.07.2005 (Annex.3) essentially on the grounds that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned was a member of the such Allotment Advisory Committee but he was not even invited in the meeting held for the purpose and the decision taken on 19.07.2005 without completion of quorum was absolutely illegal and unauthorised; that there had been serious complaints against the respondent No.4 as mentioned in the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 26.08.2005 (Annex.5); and that the petitioner being a Co-operative Society, was entitled to be given preference in such allotment. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have pointed out in their reply, inter alia, that the Allotment Advisory Committee consisted of 7 members including the District Supplies Officer, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the Tehsildar, a nominee of the Government, a social worker, a consumer and a woman consumer. It is submitted that by the letter dated 12.07.2005, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Chang was informed about the meeting of the Allotment Advisory Committee; that the meeting was otherwise held in the presence of 5 of the members of the committee and was 3 chaired by the District Supplies Officer wherein the decision was taken to accept the application of the respondent No.4. It is also submitted that under the guidelines issued for the purpose, priorities were assigned to educated unemployed person, scheduled caste/scheduled tribe person, widow or divorcee, and ex-army personnel or his widow and there was no priority as such assigned to any Co-operative Society. The respondent No.4 has also filed a reply and, while refuting the other allegations and submissions, has submitted that after the said resolution dated 26.08.2005 (Annex.5) the Gram Sabha adopted yet another resolution on 19.12.2006 (Annex.R/1), after another authorisation was issued in favour of one Shanti Lal Prajapat as another fair price shopkeeper for village Chang; that in the said resolution dated 19.12.2006 (Annex.R/1), the Gram Panchayat agreed to withdraw all the allegations against the respondent No.4 and noted that with allotment of another shop, the basic problem of the consumers of non-supply of essential commodities has been solved and earlier, because of clubbing of about 1600 ration cards with one dealer, the people were making certain complaints. Though, a cursory suggestion has been made that priority ought to have been assigned to the petitioner for itself being a Co-operative Society, no legal requirement in that regard has been stated in the writ petition nor any material has 4 been placed on record to consider the merit of such submission. On the contrary, it is maintained in the reply filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that no priority as such has been assigned to any Co-operative Society in this regard. Even in the notification dated 05.04.2005 (Annex.1) inviting applications for issuance of such authorisation, whereunder the petitioner is said to have applied, no such priority seems to have been assigned to any Co-operative Society. The submissions as made against the conduct of the respondent No.4 with reference to the resolution dated 26.08.2005 (Annex.5) are of uncertain nature and then, whatever could have been read against the respondent No.4 under the said resolution stands totally eclipsed by the subsequent resolution dated 19.12.2006 (Annex.R/1) as adopted by the very same Gram Sabha. Though a submission has been made by the petitioner of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat having not been called in the meeting and the same grievance was cursorily stated in the resolution dated 26.08.2005 (Annex.5) also but then, the very same Gram Panchayat has resolved to modify the said resolution in the later resolution dated 19.12.2006 (Annex. R/1) and stated itself having no objection if the authorisation of the respondent No.4 was continued. In the face of such resolution dated 19.12.2006 (Annex. R/1), the 5 suggestion that the Sarpanch was not called in the meeting of the Allotment Advisory Committee does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have precisely pointed out that the Sarpanch was indeed informed about the meeting of the Allotment Advisory Committed under the letter No. 653 dated 12.07.2005; and there appears no reason to disbelieve such an assertion made by the contesting respondents. In the face of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the grounds as suggested in this writ petition remain untenable; and there appears no reason to consider granting of any relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/