Allahabad High Court
Chandrakala Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23604 of 2019
Petitioner :- Chandrakala Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Instructions produced today be kept on record.
After the petitioner was put to notice, an order was passed by the District Supply Officer on 8.10.2018. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate forum and on 6.3.2019, the Appeal was allowed with a specific direction that the statements of the persons who had deposed against the petitioner by means of affidavits be recorded and also the petitioner be allowed to cross-examine them.
In short the matter was remanded by the Appellate Court to the District Supply Officer to make a full-fledged enquiry. A notice was, therefore, given to the petitioner on 25.3.2019 to which the petitioner replied on 16.4.2019 and stated that he required certain documents to face the enquiry. Another opportunity, thereafter, was given by a document dated 3.5.2019 whereby the petitioner was required to look into the documents in the office of the District Supply Officer. The petitioner on 4.7.2019 once again submitted a representation and stated that not only were the documents to be looked into but also a full-fledged enquiry was required. Thereafter, on 4.7.2019, the impugned order was passed and this order was also got approved by the District Magistrate on the very same day.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the order of the Appellate Court was not complied with in letter and spirit and also the District Supply Officer and the District Magistrate appeared to be in a very hot haste in deciding the case against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, he submits that the enquiry definitely was not conducted as per the law laid down in the Full Bench decision of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 947.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that there was sufficient compliance of the Appellate Courts direction.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel and after having perused the Appellate Court's order, I am definitely of the view that after the Appellate Court had remanded the matter on 6.3.2019, a full-fledged enquiry ought to have been undergone and a place, time and date ought to have been fixed for the enquiry. The petitioner should have been allowed to produce his own witnesses and should have also been permitted to cross-examine the complainants etc.
Under such circumstances, the order dated 4.7.2019 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Supply Officer to conduct the enquiry as per law.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
praveen.
