Allahabad High Court
Ram Mani Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 7 December, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41952 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ram Mani Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Murari Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ram Babu Yadav
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Admitted facts relating to this matter is that the petitioner Ram Mani Pandey was allotted the dealership of fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Barwa Tola. Admittedly, he had moved application of resignation from his said dealership on 20.6.2016, which was allowed on 21.6.2016 by the respondent no.-4 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonebhadra. This order of acceptance of resignation letter of petitioner has been challenged through present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is physically handicapped person, who was allotted fair price shop in question. He has no other source of income. He was ill for some time, during that period his fair price shop was inspected and was sealed in his absence on 16.6.2016. After it, he approached the inspector and head-clerk in respondent's office, who had illegally pressurized him for resignation, due to which he had submitted his resignation dated 20.6.2016. But later on he sent application dated 9.7.2016 by post to respondent for recalling his resignation and restoring the agreement of shop to him. When no action was taken, then he had again moved application dated 14.11.2016 for restoration of his shop and cancellation of order dated 21.6.2016. When no action was taken, then he was forced to prefer this writ petition for cancellation of order dated 21.6.2016.
3. These submissions were opposed by Standing Counsel, who submitted that in this matter order dated 6.9.2016 was passed by this Court for conducting the enquiry and submitting the report, for verification of true facts. Then enquiry was conducted and report has been submitted before this Court through compliance affidavit no. 365737 of 2016. He further submitted that there has been report of respondent no.-2 District Magistrate, Sonbhadra that during enquiry, the petitioner Ram Mani Pandey had accepted the he had willingly given resignation, which was accepted on 21.6.2016; after which by adopting proper procedure; new fair price shop dealer has been appointed. His submission is that in these circumstances, this writ should be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the submissions of standing counsel and contended that although in compliance of directions of this Court the enquiry was done, but it was conducted in improper way. During the enquiry, statements of those persons were taken who were involved in exerting undue influence over petitioner for resignation. Therefore such enquiry report is not acceptable.
5. From perusal of record, it is found that although no complaint was received against work and conduct of petitioner, but during inspection his shop was found closed, regarding which no information was made available, therefore, said shop was sealed on 16.6.2016. Thereafter resignation was submitted by petitioner on 20.6.2016 that was accepted on 21.6.2016. Although there is averment on behalf of petitioner that undue influence was exerted on him to submit resignation, but this submission is found unbelievable and, therefore, unacceptable. Without any reason, and without any ill will or enmity, there is no reason for the Food Inspector or any other person to exert undue influence over petitioner. In any case, it was the petitioner who had willingly written his resignation and signed it. According to petitioner the alleged undue influence or persuasion was made on 18.6.2016 by head clerk and inspector of respondent's office, but resignation was submitted on 20.6.2016. In between these dates, there was sufficient time for the petitioner to consider the facts and take decision. Resignation was not submitted in haste.
6. The dealership of fair price shop is for public convenience and the responsibility of a fair price shop holder is important for public good. If a person of unstable mind like petitioner is there, who absents from his shop at relevant time without any information and submits his resignation in apprehension of any action, without any action being initiated against him; then such indecisive person of unstable mind, who cannot take proper decision, should not be permitted to hold a responsibility that may have adverse effect on public convenience. The main purpose of such government sponsored schemes is to prevent hardship and inconvenience to the consumers.
7. The petitioner appears to be an incompetent, indecisive person who takes decision on his whims without proper application of prudence. The decision to prefer such an incompetent person over an ordinary person amounts to allowing premium on ignorance, incompetence and consequently inefficiency. Important responsibilities should generally not be assigned to inefficient persons when public interest is involved. In such matters decision should to taken for protecting the public interest from inefficient, hence undesirable persons.
8. In any case, it is found in this matter that petitioner had willingly submitted his resignation that was properly accepted. Thereafter, new dealer of fair price shop in question has rightly been appointed, because it was improper for respondent to keep the fair price shop in question vacant for long time deliberately. There is no legal justification for respondents to take any such action that may result into cancellation of agreement of newly appointed fair price shop holder, who has been appointed in proper way. There appears no illegality or impropriety in impugned order of acceptance of resignation. Any application made thereafter by petitioner is of no consequence.
9. The petitioner has no constitutional or statutory right to be appointed as fair price shop dealer. The licence which he had obtained under the provisions of the Act to deal with the commodities has not been cancelled, but it was the he himself who had willingly abandoned his dealership. His dealership was cancelled in accordance with law. The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not being affected in any manner. There is no fundamental right in anyone to be appointed as agent of a fair price shop under a Government scheme. Therefore no legal injury is going to be caused to him by impugned order.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2016
SR
