Allahabad High Court
Arjun vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 1 December, 2017
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40313 of 2017
Petitioner :- Arjun
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
The instant writ petition challenges the order of cancellation dated 14.8.2017. Initially the writ petition was entertained as there was a confusion as to whether the District Supply Officer could have passed the impugned order. Today the learned Standing Counsel has produced the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 and has relied on Clause -12 which is being been reproduced herein under :
"ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd xzkeh.k {ks= dh nqdkuksa dk fujh{k.k rFkk vfu;ferrk ik;s tkus ij nqdkunkjksa ds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSAß
It shows that District Supply Officer had the authority to inspect and take disciplinary action against all fair price shops in the vllages.
The learned Standing Counsel further placed reliance on a Government Order dated 30.9.2004 which is also being reproduced herein under:
"[kk| rFkk jln vuqHkkx&5 y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 flrEcj] 2004
fo"k; %& *xzkeh.k rFkk 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds p;u] [email protected]=hdj.k ,oa
lEc)hdj.k ds lEcU/k esa izfdz;k dk fu/kkZj.kA*
egksn;]
mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&[email protected]&6&2002&162 [email protected]] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002] la[;k&[email protected]&6&2002&[email protected]] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002] la[;k
[email protected]&6&03&8 ¼113½@03] fnukad 22&10&2003 ,oa l[;k&[email protected]&6&2004&300 [email protected]] fnukad] 29 tqykbZ] 2004 rFkk le;≤ ij tkjh vU; 'kklukns'kksa dh d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djasA
2& fofHkUu ftyksa }kjk 'kklu ls xzkeh.k {ks= ,oa 'kgjh {ks= esa mfpr nj nqdkuksa ds n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼[email protected] vkfn½ ds vf/kdkj dh fLFkfr Li"V djuss ds lEcU/k esa ekxZn'kZu dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA mDr ds izfjizs{; esa eq>ls ;g dgus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd ftykf/kdkjh rFkk ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks lEiw.kZ ftys ds ¼ftlesa uxjh; ,oa xzkeh.k nksuksa {ks= lfEefyr gksaxs½ yf{kr tu forj.k iz.kkyh ds lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼[email protected] vkfn½ djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA mi ftykf/kdkjh dks vius rglhy esa fLFkr lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼[email protected] vkfn½ djus dk vf/kdkj ;Fkkor~ jgsxkA
3& mijksDr 'kklukns'k mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;sA
It shows a further authority had been vested in the Sub-divisional Officer to take action against the fair price shop dealers. Thereafter, the learned Standing Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 13.4.2017 which is being reproduced herein under:
"fo"k; %& xzkeh.k ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds p;u] [email protected] ,oa
lEc)hdj.k ds lEcU/k esa izfdz;k dk fu/kkZj.kA
egksn;]
mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&[email protected]&6&2004&[email protected]] fnukad 30-09-2004 dk d`i;k lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlesa lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh dh lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k vkSj muds fo:) n.MkRed ¼[email protected]½ dk;Zokgh dk vf/kdkj ftykf/[email protected] iwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks Hkh iznku fd;k x;k gSA fofHkUu lzksrksa ls 'kklu ds laKku esa ;g ckr yk;h tk jgh gS fd ,d gh fcUnq ij dk;Zokgh ftyk iwfrZ vf/[email protected] ftykf/kdkjh vFkok ftykf/kdkjh dks dk;Zokgh dk vf/kdkj iznku dj fn;k x;k gS] tcfd lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds lqpk: lapkyu dk nkf;Ro lEcfU/kr ftykf/kdkfj;ksa dks lkSaik x;k gSA
2& vr% mDr 'kklukns'k esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq, bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd mi ftykf/kdkjh vius rglhy esa fLFkfr lHkh nqdkuksa dk fujh{k.k rks dj ldrs gSa] fdUrq muds fo:) n.MkRed ¼[email protected]½ ,oa cgky dh dk;Zokgh ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls i=koyh ij ftykf/kdkjh dh fyf[kr vuqefr izkIr djus ds mijkUr gh djsaxsA
3& mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 30&09&2004 dks bl lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;A
This Government Order shows that the Sub-divisional Officer could, though inspect the shop, pass the orders of cancellation / suspension only after getting approval from the District Magistrate.
It has been provided in this Government Order that the records of the case would go to the District Magistrate through the District Supply Officer. A joint reading of the three Government Orders dated 17.8.2002, 30.9.2004 and 13.4.2017 makes it clear that the District Supply Officer has, in a given district, powers to take action against the fair price shop dealers. Additionally, the Sub-divisional Officer has also been given powers under the Government Order dated 30.9.2004 but the same has been curtailed by the Government Order dated 13.4.2017 and the Sub-divisional Officer, though can take action, can do so only after the approval of the District Magistrate.
Under such circumstances, the impugned order which has been passed by the District Supply Officer could have very well been passed by him. It was well within the jurisdiction of the District Supply Officer to pass the orders.
The learned Standing Counsel next submitted that as the order passed by the District Supply Officer was appealable, this Court may not interfere. I therefore, direct that the petitioner may file an appeal which shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without going to the question of limitation.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.12.2017
Ashish Pd.
