Allahabad High Court
DILSHAD AND 10 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that a PIL challenging the appointment of a fair price shop agent is not maintainable and the aggrieved party must pursue the specific appeal provided under Clause 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.
Summary
The petitioners, Dilshad and ten others, challenged the appointment of a specific individual as a fair price shop agent, alleging impropriety. They filed a public interest litigation seeking to set aside the appointment. The petition relied on Clause 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, which permits an appeal against such appointments. The Court examined whether a PIL is the appropriate vehicle for this grievance. It concluded that the PIL is not maintainable because the statute provides a specific appeal remedy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, directing the petitioners to use the statutory appeal process.
Issues considered
- Whether a public interest litigation is maintainable to challenge the appointment of a fair price shop agent under Clause 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016?
- Whether the petitioner must avail the specific appeal remedy provided under the Order instead of filing a PIL?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 — s. 13(3)
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- fair price shop
- appointment
- essential commodities order
- maintainability
- appeal provision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2224 of 2026
Dilshad And 10 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Garg, Arun Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing for the selected candidate.
2. From the prayer, we find that the petitioner is aggrieved by the
appointment of a particular individual as a fair price shop agent.
3. As per Clause 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of
Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, any person can file an appeal
against the appointment of a particular individual.
4. Under the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the instant
Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. The petitioner may avail the
appropriate remedy which is available under the law.
5. Accordingly, the instant Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 24, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…