ANEETA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIC/36823/2025 · 2025-10-28
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 193403 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 193403 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36823 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 to initiate strict action against all persons responsible for increasing the number of units in Gram Panchayat Nakhatpur, Kasimabad, Ghazipur and cancel the allotment of fair price shop granted in favour of respondent no.7.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had moved an application before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur against fraudulent increase of number of units in Village Nakhatpur, which requires investigation, on which a report was called from the District Supply Officer, Ghazipur. The District Supply Officer, Ghazipur by his letter dated 4.4.2025 has submitted a report that the fair price shop licence was granted to the respondent no.7 on 31.1.2005, subsequent to which the petitioners have been making complaint against the allotment. It has been further stated in the report that for last 20 years such frivolous complaint is being made, which has been disposed of and the complaint made by the petitioners has no force.
4. In view of the aforesaid report of the District Supply Officer, it is evident that the complaints by the petitioners are being made with mala fide intentions for the last 20 years, which have been found to be unsustainable. As no anomaly has been pointed out in the report, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Rohit Kumar Singh, Shashank Shekhar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Aneeta Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
therefore, no further action is required to be taken by the respondent no.2, for which no mandamus can be issued in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The present writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 29, 2025 Anil WRIC No. 36823 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad