Ramesh Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 7366 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 28 
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57107 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Ramesh Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Narain Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

Some complaint was received against the petitioner, the fair price shop holder of Gram Panchayat Parewatar. After preliminary enquiry, show cause notice was served on petitioner, which he did not reply, therefore, respondent no. 3 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasia had passed impugned order dated 11.11.2016, by which it was held that since petitioner, the fair price shop holder, had not submitted his explanation, therefore, the charges are correct and his agreement of fair price shop is cancelled. This impugned order has been challenged through present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

Learned standing counsel opposed the contentions of petitioner and submitted that alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to petitioner in this matter.

So far acceptability of writ petition in case of availability of alternative remedy is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 has held as under:

"11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226."

In light of legal position available before this Court, this matter was considered. After haring rival submissions and perusing the records, it is found that show cause notice was served on the petitioner, which was not replied by him, then impugned order was passed holding him guilty of the charges only on the ground that petitioner had not given any explanation to the charges. Neither evidence in support of charges were considered nor any finding was given that there were sufficient evidence to prove the charges. The impugned order has been passed without considering facts of charge and without giving any finding on those charges. This non-speaking and unreasoned order appears to have been passed without application of judicial mind and is totally perverse. Such orders must be passed on merits, and after application of mind, mentioning reasons.

In view of above, in these circumstances, in this particular case, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.11.2016 is set aside. The respondent no. 3 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar is directed to pass fresh reasoned order on merits of the matter in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 2.12.2016

SR