IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8078 of 2024 Decided on 12th August 2025 Suresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and order dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) may very kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. ii. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to allot the Fair Price Shop Dehgran at place Dehgran in favour of present petitioner.” 2. When the case was listed on 21.07.2025, the following order was passed:- “As per report of the Registry, steps have not been taken for the service of respondents No. 4 and 5. This is despite the fact that the order for the service of said respondent was passed on 10.12.2024. Now let said respondents be served by way of dasti notice, on taking steps within two days, 2 returnable for 11.08.2025. Dasti notice be handed over to learned Counsel for the petitioner by 24.07.2025. List on 11.08.2025. In the meanwhile, rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 be also filed.” 3. Thereafter also, steps were not taken in time on behalf of the petitioner to serve the parties and in terms of the report of the Registry. Firstly the steps were taken only on 06.08.2025 and besides, learned counsel did not take dasti notice for the service of respondents No.4 and 5. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that as no instructions are coming forth, as he was not able to contact the petitioner thereto, needful could not be done. This Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be a reason to non-comply with the order passed by the Court for the service of the respondents and in fact this shows the callous attitude of the petitioner, who appears to be not all that serious in pursuing the litigation. 5. Otherwise also, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to grant the reliefs as is being prayed for to the petitioner. 3 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of a Fair Price Shop to respondent No.4, which is a Self Help Group of women from District Chamba. The main ground of challenge is that respondent No.4 was registered as a Self Help Group after the date of issuance of the advertisement, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure-P-1. In order to substantiate this fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-4, which is the certificate of registration of Self Help Group, which is dated 31.07.2023 and as per the petitioner, the advertisement Annexure P-1 was issued on 05.07.2023. 7. A perusal of Annexure P-1 demonstrates that in terms of this advertisement, applications were invited inter alia from interested parties including widows, who were looking after their children as also Mahila Mandal, Cooperative Societies of Women at any other group of ladies etc., for the allotment of the Fair Price Shop alongwith other category of applicants mentioned therein. Further, perusal of this advertisement demonstrates that the last date for submission of the application form was on 06.08.2023. A reading of Annexure 4 P-1 demonstrates that there was no embargo therein that a group of ladies which was not registered as on the date of the issuance of advertisement was not eligible to apply for the allotment of the Fair Price Shop. In fact, as the last date for submissions of the form was on 06.08.2023 obviously, the eligibility of the applicant was to be seen as on the said date. Now, admittedly, in terms of Annexure P-4, respondent No.4 stood registered as a Self Help Group on 31.07.2023 i.e. before the last date of submission of the application form. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was ineligible to apply for the allotment of the Fair Price Shop is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Not only this, this Court is otherwise is of the considered view that as a group of ladies and a Mahila Mandal besides a Cooperative Society were otherwise eligible to apply for the Fair Price Shop and respondent No.4 being a group of lady otherwise were eligible irrespective of the fact as to whether they stood registered as a Self Help Group or not. However, in the present case as they stood registered as a Self Help Group before the last date of submission of the application form, it cannot be said that the 5 allotment of the Fair Price Shop to the respondent is bad or not sustainable the eyes of law. 8. As far as the other issues raised in the writ petition are concerned this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any mala fidies having been alleged against the Committee which has recommended respondent No.4, the Court is not dwelling into it, because, no material has been placed on record to substantiate these allegations. 9. Further, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General in terms of Annexure P-5, notification dated 21.03.2021, which deals with the allotment of the Fair Price Shop, priority as provided therein also firstly to the Gram Panchayat and thereafter to the Self Help Group. 10. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, as this Court finds no reason to interfere with the allotment of the Fair Price Shop in favour of respondent No.4, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Vinod)