Vakil vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 7371 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67253 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Vakil
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.C. Upadhyay
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by non-deposit of 1/4th amount in terms of the conditions stipulated which he says was not done deliberately for the auction bid in relation to the grant of a fishery lease of the pond in question.

Learned counsel has invited the attention of the court to the application moved on 24.8.2013 where it is alleged that the petitioner tendered the amount of Rs. One Lac to the Nazir but no receipt was issued for the same and the petitioner was informed by the then Tehsildar that the receipt will be issued later on.

To the mind of the court such a procedure with regard to government revenue and public exchequer is unknown and if the amount had been received by the Nazir, and he did not issue a receipt then it amounts to a criminal misappropriation and temporary embezzlement of government money.

The petitioner should have immediately lodged an F.I.R. against the Nazir for having committed any such offence if the aforesaid fact stated by the petitioner is true.

The petitioner waited for more than eleven days and then he filed an application on 24th August, 2013 that since the Tehsildar concerned was transferred therefore he was moving this application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on which the S.D.M. passed an order on 30.9.2013. The order which has been passed has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition which is also very peculiar in its wording. The order is so peculiar that it will be appropriate to quote it herein under:-

^^i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk fof/kor voyksdu fd;kA ;fn rglhynkj dh fjiksVZ lgh ekuh tk;s rks fQj f}rh; cksyh ysus okyk O;fDr Hkh rkykc dh uhykeh ls u rks dksbZ izk0i0 fn;k vkSj u gh Lo;a uhykeh iSlk tek djus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa lansg mRiUu gksrks gSA lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, ek0m0 U;k0 }kjk uhykeh dh izfdz;k esa Hkkx ysus ds dkj.k uhyke dzsrk odhy dks iSlk tek djkus gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd rglhynkj uh0 iSlk tek djkdj eRL; ikyu Lohd`rkFkZ fjiksVZ nsaA^^

Having perused the said order, as a matter of fact the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have conducted an enquiry and should not have given the benefit of doubt as if he was trying a criminal case. This was totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

In my opinion, this requires further enquiry by the Collector of the district. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Collector, Azamgarh, to hold an enquiry and if he finds any of the officials to be guilty of dereliction in the discharge of their duty as alleged and the manner in which the benefit of doubt is sought to be extended in favour of the petitioner then he shall take appropriate steps for making a strong recommendation including disciplinary action against such officials.

The petition is dismissed with the said observations.

A copy of this order may be given to the learned Standing Counsel for compliance free of charges.

Order Date :- 10.12.2013/Sahu