Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARM RAJ YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' CIVIL SUPPLY U.P. GOVT. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharm Raj Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Civil Supply U.P. Govt. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 29164 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 7418 (6 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT No.25

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.29164 Of 2002.

Dharm Raj Yadav.   Petitioner.

Versus

State of U.P. and others. Respondents.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Mirzapur dated 5.4.2002 passed in appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 18.4.2001 by which the agreement of the petitioner for the fair price shop has been cancelled.

It appears that on the behest of direction given by the then Minister of the State for Food and Civil Supplies an enquiry claimed to have been made by the Inspector on 17.3.2001. The shop was found closed and on enquiry from the neighbours, it was found that the fair price shop usually remain closed. On the basis of the said report vide order dated 21.3.2001, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has suspended the shop and asked the petitioner to produce the records relating to the months of August, September, October, 2000 and January, February, 2001 and to file reply on 31.3.2001and the shop was attached with the shop of one Sri Anil Kumar Yadav of Gram Panchayat, Gangapur. Petitioner claimed to have filed the reply on 7.4.2001 annexing the copies of register for the month of August, September, October, 2000 and January and February, 2001along with his own affidavit and the affidavits of few persons of the village certifying the satisfactory distribution of the goods by the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 18.4.2001 cancelled the agreement on the ground that the petitioner's security has been forfeited three times earlier on the complaint of the inspector. The petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by the impugned order has rejected the appeal. In the impugned order, it has been observed that the perusal of the record shows that there is a letter on which there are signatures of the elected members of Gram Pradhan and Up Pradhan dated 30.3.2001 and along with the letter there are affidavits of Hridey Narain Yadav, Shiv Nath, Smt. Lakhpatti Devi, Uma Shanker, Smt. Sunra Devi, Smt. Mantri Devi, Umakant, Surendra, Smt. Sirtaji, Smt. Manju and Vinod Kumar in which discrepancy in the proper distribution of the goods has been alleged. It is stated that against the said affidavits, no affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has been asked to produce the record for the months of August, September and October, 2000, January and February, 2001 and has been asked to file the explanation by 31st March, 2001. It has also been stated that three times earlier, the security has been forfeited.

Heard Sri S.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Rajput and Sri M.M. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the shop of the petitioner was suspended and subsequently agreement was cancelled on the behest of the Minister of the State for Food and Civil Supplies' letter, which is enclosed as Annexure CA-6. He submitted that after the aforesaid letter of the Minister, the subsequent enquiry by the Inspector was only eyewash and the authorities were virtually determined to cancel the agreement. He submitted that the reply was filed on 7.4.2001 along with his own affidavit and the affidavits of various persons and also annexing the copy of the register for the months of August, September and October, 2000 and January and February, 2001.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order.

Filing of the reply and affidavits are not in dispute. The averments made in paragraph 9 and 10 in this regard has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. Perusal of the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as Commissioner shows that the reply and the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the affidavits filed by various persons have not been considered at all. Moreover, the Commissioner in its order referred the letter signed by the members of Gram Pradhan and Up Pradhan and the affidavits filed by various persons. There is no reference of such letter and affidavits in the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is not clear that whether this letter and the affidavits have been confronted to the petitioner. Thus, in case, if this letter and affidavits have not been confronted to the petitioner, it cannot be relied upon against the petitioner. In view of the fact that the reply and the affidavits of the petitioner has not been considered, the impugned order of the Commissioner is vitiated. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh on a consideration of the reply and the affidavits filed by the petitioner and in case, if any report or any other document is proposed to be relied upon, the same may be confronted to the petitioner.

In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order of the Commissioner, Division Vindhyachal, Mirzapur  dated 5.4.2002 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.

Dated.6.4.2006./vs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.