Allahabad High Court
Nazarul Husain vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 November, 2017
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2577 of 2014
Petitioner :- Nazarul Husain
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.A. Rizvi,Firoz Haider,Syed Badshah Husain Naqvi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
The petitioner who is a fair price shop dealer in Village Bagraua, Block and Tehslil Bilari, District Moradabad had been running his fair price shop for almost 25 years to the utmost satisfaction of the villagers.
The petitioner states that when the government changed an M.L.A. of the ruling party, arrayed as the respondent no.4 desired his man to run the fair price shop. However, when the petitioner refused to resign on the insistence of the respondent no.4, then one Babu and his muscle men namely, Md. Alam, Mustafa, Nanhey along with certain other unknown persons came to his shop and on gun point asked him to put his signature on an affidavit and on an application which was to the affect that he did not wish to run the shop. This application was thereafter taken by the respondent no.4 to the Sub-divisional Officer who on that very date accepted the resignation of the petitioner. The petitioner was also whisked away and kept in captivity. After the resignation of the petitioner was accepted he was released. Thereafter, he approached the police which refused to register the complaint necessitating the petitioner to approach, on that very date i.e. 13.4.2012, the District Supply Officer, where he handed over his application narrating his tale of woe. The Chief Minister, the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the Commissioner, Moradabad were also approached and informed. However, when no heed was paid to the application of the petitioner, he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.25344 of 2012 (Nazarul Husain Vs. State of U.P. and others) and on 22.5.2012, this Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal which was decided on 22.8.2013. The petitioner had very categorically stated in the appeal also that the signatures were obtained on the affidavit and the application by coersion. All these allegations were raised in the appeal in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5. However, the Appellate Court also did not advert to the grounds as were raised by the petitioner and it did not look into the fact that the petitioner was by force made to sign on the application and on the affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that this criminal and fraudulent act of the respondent no.4 was neither looked into by the Supply Inspector nor was it considered by the Appellate Court. He submits anything which is done fraudulently gets vitiated and since the Commissioner did not advert to the grounds as were raised by the petitioner, the order deserves to be set aside. To buttress his submission the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25369 of 2009 (Umesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others) delivered on 9.9.2014 and has submitted that when specifically the petitioner raised the issue that his signature was fraudulently obtained by the respondent no.4, then the same should have been dealt with.
Learned Standing Counsel however, submits that since the petitioner had put his signature himself on the resignation letter and on the affidavit, then the only course open with the authorities was to accept the resignation.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that when the petitioner had raised a specific ground before the Appellate Court that his signatures were obtained forcefully and fraudulently, then the least the Appellate Court should have done was to have given its finding on this issue. This having not been done, the Appellate court committed a grave error.
Under such circumstances, the appellate order passed in the appeal dated 22.8.2013 is set aside. The appeal is remanded back to the Appellate Court which shall decide the same within a period of two months from the production of a certified copy of this order and shall specifically deal with the grounds as have been raised by the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed.
The distribution of the essential commodities shall continue in the manner they are being distributed today.
Order Date :- 13.11.2017
Ashish Pd.
