Uttarakhand High Court
Banwari Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1896 of 2025 (M/S)
Banwari Singh and Another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Learned C.S.C. takes notices for the respondent nos. 1,
2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.
4. Issue notices to the respondent nos. 6 and 7, returnable
within six weeks.
5. Steps to be taken within a week.
6. Respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks.
7. Two weeks, thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed.
8. List this matter on 28.10.2025, for final hearing.
9. Heard on Interim Relief Application, IA No.1 of 2025
10. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek
directions so that an enquiry may be conducted against the
respondent no.6, Vipin Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (Food) and
respondent no.7, Ashutosh Bhatt, Area Rationing Officer; also that
they may be transferred to some other place till the enquiry is
completed. There are other directions as well.
11. By means of the interim relief application, the petitioners
seek directions to the respondent no.1, the State, to transfer the
respondent no.6, Vipin Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (Food) and
respondent no.7, Ashutosh Bhatt, Area Rationing Officer, to some
other place till the enquiry is completed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are Fair Price Shop dealer. The respondent no.6, Vipin
Kumar, is Deputy Commissioner (Food), Kumaon Region/Officiating
District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, and the respondent no.7,
Ashutosh Bhatt, is the Area Rationing Officer, Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar; there are serious allegations against the
respondent nos. 6 and 7 with regard to dereliction in performing their
duties; demanding bribes and other activities, which are proven in an
enquiry conducted by the respondent no.2/Commissioner, Food, Civil
Supply and Consumer Affairs; he had recommended that action be
taken against the respondent no.6, Vipin Kumar. Reference has been
made to Annexure No.10, the report submitted by the respondent
no.2/Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs.
13. He further submits that, in fact, the respondent no.6,
Vipin Kumar, has demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from the petitioner no.2, of
which call is recorded and the transcript is at Annexure No.5 to the
writ petition; respondent no.6, Vipin Kumar, and respondent no.7,
Ashutosh Bhatt, both are posted at Udham Singh Nagar for about 10
years now.
14. In the instant matter, this Court has required learned
State Counsel to get instructions from the Secretary, Food, Civil
Supply and Consumer Affairs, as to what action has been taken on
Annexure No.10, and if no action has been taken, why it is so?
15. On multiple occasions, time was given. Today, learned
State Counsel submits that the Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and
Consumer Affairs, has already recommended for transfer of the
respondent no.6, Vipin Kumar, from Udham Singh Nagar, in view of
the report of the respondent no.2/the Commissioner, Food, Civil
Supply and Consumer Affairs,. But the matter is still pending before
the higher authorities.
16. Generally, this Court should refrain from making any
interference in the working of the administrative authorities, but here
is a case where the respondent no.2/the Commissioner, Food, Civil
Supply and Consumer Affairs, has recommended action against the
respondent no.6, Vipin Kumar, for disobedience of orders, etc., and as
stated today, a statement is given that the Secretary of the Department
concerned has also recommended for the transfer of respondent no.6,
Vipin Kumar, from District Udham Singh Nagar, but no action has
been taken. The petitioner has placed on record that the respondent
no.6, Vipin Kumar, has demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from the petitioner
no.2 as bribe.
17. This Court cannot be a moot spectator of the inaction of
the administrative authorities in such matters of illegality and alleged
corruption that has been done by the respondent no.6, Vipin Kumar.
Therefore, this Court directs the respondent no.1, the Secretary, Food,
Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs Department, that the respondent
no.6, Vipin Kumar, shall not be given any charge of District Udham
Singh Nagar, till further orders of the Court.
18. The Court requests learned State Counsel to
communicate this order immediately to the concerned Secretary.
19. The interim relief application stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
05.08.2025
Ravi Bisht
