Chandra Prakash vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 4163 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37667 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Paritosh Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

       It appears that the Respondent No. 4 was having licence in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question.  On a Complaint dated 16.04.2013 made by the petitioner and certain Complaints made by the other persons, proceedings were initiated against the Respondent No. 4.  By the Order dated 20.04.2013, licence of the Respondent No. 4 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question was suspended, and the Respondent No. 4 was required to submit his Explanation in respect of the alleged irregularities within the period mentioned in the said Order.

      The Respondent No. 4 thereafter, submitted his Explanation dated 26.04.2013.   After considering the Explanation submitted by the Respondent No. 4, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned (Respondent No. 2) passed a detailed Order dated 10.06.2013 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. 

       By the said Order dated 10.06.2013, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned concluded that the Explanation submitted by the Respondent No. 4 was not fully satisfactory and, accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned directed for forfeiture of Rs. 3,000/- from the Security Deposit made by the Respondent No. 4, and restored the licence of the Respondent No. 4, and in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question.

       The petitioner has thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 10th June, 2013.

        We have heard Sri P.S. Shukla holding brief for Sri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos 1 to 3, and perused the record. 

       From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that taking cognizance of the Complaints made by the Petitioner and others, proceedings were initiated against the Respondent No. 4.  As a consequence of the proceedings, the Respondent No. 4 was penalised by  forfeiture  of Rs. 3,000/- from the Security Deposit made by the Respondent No. 4, and the licence of the Respondent No 4 was restored.

        Thus, on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioner and other, suitable action has already been taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned against the Respondent No. 4 while restoring the licence of the respondent No. 4 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. 

          In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Petitioner, who is merely a Complainant, cannot raise any grievance in regard to the Order dated 10.06.2013, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned as a consequence of the proceedings taken against the Respondent No. 4. 

        The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is misconceived, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

       The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.7.2013

Priyanka