Ramraja Vipdam Sahari Samiti ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6527 MP

                                                                      1                               WP-21409-2021
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      WP-21409-2021
                                      (RAMRAJA VIPDAM SAHARI SAMITI PRATHVIPUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
                                                                        OTHERS)


                                   Jabalpur, Dated : 08-10-2021
                                         Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                         Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                         Ms. Swati A. George, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State.

With the consent, finally heard.

The challenge mounted in this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution is to the order Annexure P/2 whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) Prithvipur, District Nivadi has removed the petitioner/salesman of a shop.

The singular point raised by Shri Lala is founded upon Clause 16(7) of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which was interpreted by this Court in WP. No.10944/15 (Bindravan Yadav. vs. State of M.P.), WP. No.19591/15 (Dinendra Kumar Pandey vs. Commissioner Rewa) and WP. No.26823/18 (Kailash Pateria vs. State of M.P.). It is argued that as per Sub-clause (7) of Clause 16 aforesaid, the power vested

with the Shop Allotting Authority to direct institute concerned to remove the salesman whereas in the instant case the said authority himself has removed the salesman, which is wholly impermissible.

Prayer is opposed by Ms. George, learned P.L. She also placed reliance on the language employed in Clause 16(7) aforesaid.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. This is settled in law that if a statute prescribes a thing to be done in the particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden. [See AIR 1959 SC 93 (Baru Ram vs. Prasanni), (2002) 1 SCC 633 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala) and judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 690

Signature Not Verified (Satyanjay Tripathi and Another Vs. Banarsi Devi)] SAN

Digitally signed by BHARTI GADGE Date: 2021.10.08 18:01:03 IST 2 WP-21409-2021 I find substance in the argument of Shri Lala that it was not open to the Shop Allotting Authority himself to remove the salesman. At best, he could have directed the institute to remove the shopkeeper. For this reason alone, the order Annexure P/2 is set aside. As held in the case of Kailash Pateria (supra), liberty is reserved to the Competent Authority to take appropriate

action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE

b

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by BHARTI GADGE Date: 2021.10.08 18:01:03 IST