Virendra Pratap Singh vs The State Of U.P. And Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 1307 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24218 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Virendra Pratap Singh
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Deo Prakash Singh,M.D.Singh Shekhar
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.K.S. Kushwaha,U.N.Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.

Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.

1. We have heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Deo Prakash Singh. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents.

2. An impleadment has been filed by Sri Rakesh Pande and Dr. Neeraj Rai, on behalf of Sri Doodh Nath Singh.

3. An objection has been taken by Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar that Sri Doodh Nath Singh was registered as a transport and handling contractor with the Regional Food Controller, Varanasi Region, Vaaransi. His licence was however valid only upto 31.03.2013, and that he has no subsisting right to oppose the petition.

4. The objection is upheld. The application for impleadment is rejected.

5. The petitioner's registration dated 13.06.2007, as an 'A' class contractor for handling and transport work in Food and Civil Supplies Department has been cancelled by the Regional Food Controller, Varanasi Region, Varanasi vide order dated 5.5.2012, giving rise to this writ petition.

6. The registration has been cancelled on the ground that under the eligibility conditions, the petitioner is not entitled to continue as authorized transport and handling contractor as his registration with U.P. Warehousing Corporation, which is one of the purchase agency of the State Government, was cancelled on 24.08.2011.

7. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar submits that the facts stated in the impugned order that the U.P. Warehousing Corporation was nominated as Purchase Agency by the State Government under the Government Order No. 414/29-05-2012- 5 (1)/2012 for the Rabi Market Year 2012-13 is incorrect. He submits that in any case, the matter with regard to registration with U.P. Warehousing Corporation is still engaging the attention of higher authorities on an application filed by petitioner, and that cancellation of registration by the U.P. Warehousing Corporation could not by itself result  into cancellation of registration with the Regional Food Controller, Varanasi.

8. The petitioner has annexed a Government Order No.155/29-5-2012-5(1)/2012 dated 23.03.2012 for the Rabi Market Year 2012-13, to demonstrate that the U.P. Warehousing Corporation was not appointed as a purchase agency in the Rabi Market Year 2012-13.

9. In reply, it is stated in the counter affidavit of Sri  Hriday Shankar Chaturvedi, Regional Food Controller, Varanasi Region, Varanasi in para 9 as follows:-

"That in reply to the contents of paragraph 18 of the writ petition, it is most respectfully submitted that the Food Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow issued a letter dated 13.06.2007, fixing some conditions/eligibility for appointment for a contractor in the Marketing Branch of Food Department, in which it has been specifically provided that any contractor whose any close relatives, family members or partners who were previously attached with any purchase agency of the department and whose registration was previously suspended or cancelled or they have been black listed, will not be eligible for registration as contractor of the department. The petitioner at the time of his registration has submitted an affidavit on 20.07.2011, disclosing therein that licence of any of his close relatives/family members or partners, has neither been suspended nor cancelled nor they have been black listed. The aforesaid found of the petitioner found to be incorrect as the petitioner was appointed as contractor in purchase agency of U.P. Food Store Corporation, whose registration was suspended and vide letter dated 18.6.2012, he was given a show cause notice, the reply of which was submitted by the petitioner on 16.7.2011. In this view of the mater, it is evident that the petitioner has concealed this very fact of suspension of his registration and by concealing this fact, he has submitted his aforesaid affidavit and as such after adopting due procedure of law, the registration order of the petitioner dated 5.5.2012 has been cancelled. From the tabulation chart given below, it is evident that the U.P. State Store Corporation is a Purchase Agency of the department and the petitioner was registered contractor of said purchase agency which was subsequently suspended and at the time of his subsequent registration, the said registration remained suspended but concealing this fact, the petitioner has submitted said affidavit and fraudulently got registration hence the petitioner as per prescribed norm of the department is not eligible for registration. Copy of the policy dated 13.6.2007, is filed herewith as Annexure-CA-I, copy of affidavit submitted by the petitioner dated 26.07.2011, is filed herewith as Annexure-CA-2, copy of suspension order/show cause notice dated 21.04.2012 is filed herewith as Annexure-CA-3 to this affidavit. The details of Government Orders are as under:-

dzekaddz; o"kZ

'kklukns'k la[;k o fnukad

1jch foi.ku o"kZ 2005 - 06

235, fnukad 07 03 2005

2jch foi.ku o"kZ 2006 - 07

340, fnukad 09 03 2006

3jch foi.ku o"kZ 2007 - 08

123 fnukad 28 02 2007

4jch foi.ku o"kZ 2008 - 09

255 fnukad 14 03 2008

5jch foi.ku o"kZ 2009 - 10

272 fnukad 31 03 2009

6jch foi.ku o"kZ 2012 - 13

155 fnukad 23 03 2012

7jch foi.ku o"kZ 2012 - 13

414 fnukad 01 05 2012

It is relevant to mention here that in the aforesaid Government Orders, it is specifically provided that the State Government is empowered to appoint/purchase any other purchase agency, and to remove any working agency. From the tabulation chart given below, it is evident that the U.P. Store Corporation is a selected/appointed purchase agency of the U.P. Government. In this regard, copy of the letter dated 23.03.2012 is filed herewith as Annexure-CA-4 to this affidavit.

dzekad

lEHkkx

dz; o"kZ

eqjknkckn

2004 - 05

eqjknkckn

2005 - 06

eqjknkckn

2006 - 07

[kk| foHkkx

2007 - 08

Dkuiqj

2009 - 10

10. The petitioner has relied upon Government Order No. 155 dated 23.03.2012. However, he has not annexed the copy of Government Order No. 414 dated 01.05.2012. In the year 2007, the petitioner was registered with Regional Food Controller, Varanasi. It is not denied that at that time the U.P. Warehousing Corporation was nominated as a purchase agency of the State Government to purchase wheat.

11. The petitioner's registration with U.P. Warehousing Corporation was cancelled vide order dated 24.08.2011, after giving opportunity of show cause to the petitioner on the ground that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh - a representative of the petitioner was engaged in collecting 'rangdhari tax' (Goonda Tax) from the contractors appointed at the godown at Pahariya Mandi. The petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition or produced any material to show that he has removed Sri Pramod Kumar Singh - his authorized representative, working for him.

12. The petitioner has not denied that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, the representative of the petitioner is not associated with him. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, was found forcibly realising protection money from the contractors and on which the petitioner's registration was cancelled by the Managing Director of U.P. Warehousing Corporation on 24.08.2011.

13. We do not find that the petitioner has made out any case, nor there is any good ground to interfere in the matter, as the petitioner's registration with U.P. Warehousing Corporation was cancelled on 24.08.2011, and he has not yer removed or disassociated with Sri Pramod Kumar Singh who was found indulging in criminal activities on behalf of the petitioner in the transport and handling work.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2013

nethra