Allahabad High Court
Phool Pati vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Food And ... on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Judgment reserved on 23.03.2022
Judgment delivered on 26.04.2022
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1007666 of 2013
Petitioner :- Phool Pati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Food And Civil Supply And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Khan,Mohan Singh,Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudha
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad (annexed as annexure No.1 to the petition) and the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur (annexed as annexure No.2 to the petition).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed in the most mechanical manner and nowhere it is mentioned in the impugned order that any inquiry was conducted. He further submitted that the vague allegations have been leveled in the impugned order without disclosing the name of complainant/ration card holder. He further submitted that the license of the fair price shop of the petitioner was canceled on 27.02.2013 by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, an appeal against the order dated 27.02.2013 was filed which was also rejected by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad without considering the provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 as well as the Government order dated 16.10.2014 and the relevant government orders.
4. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaishinghpur, Sultanpur as well as the appellate authority.
5. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and going through the impugned orders, it is evident that in the impugned order neither any facts of the charges nor details of the inquiry are mentioned, as government orders dated 23.04.2003, 29.07.2004, 25.01.2006, 10.08.2007 provides the procedure for dealing the complaint but in the present case, neither the charges nor the name of complainants have been discussed and the details of inquiry is also not mentioned.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad (annexed as annexure No.1 to the petition) and the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur (annexed as annexure No.2 to the petition) are hereby set aside.
7. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur is directed to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with law by giving the charge sheet, opportunity of hearing and pass a proper order within two months in accordance with law.
8. However, it is made clear that the arrangement of distribution of commodity as existing today shall not be disturbed till the final order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 26.04.2022
S. Shivhare
