High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Suman Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 21117 of 2006  RD-AH 8093 (20 April 2006)
Court No. 34
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21117 of 2006
Smt. Suman Devi
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors,.
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4th March, 2006 passed by the respondent no. 3 cancelling the income certificate of the petitioner.
The petitioner had earlier been granted an income certificate by the respondent no. 3 on the basis of the application and the documents filed by her in support of the same, as it was required for the purpose of getting the job of Anganbari Worker. A complaint was filed by another person on which an enquiry was conducted though without involving the petitioner in the said enquiry and the certificate had been cancelled. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside on this sole ground. The petitioners certificate of income had been cancelled arbitrarily though petitioners income has exactly been assessed earlier while issuing the income certificate, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition contending that the petitioner has not challenged the findings recorded by the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order, therefore, setting aside this order and asking the authority to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would be a futile exercise. Thus the petition is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.
The respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order has recorded the following findings of facts:-
(1) Petitioners had been given the income certificate that her husband was having the income of Rs. 1600/- per month.
(2) Petitioner's father-in-law is a Headmaster in a Primary School.
(3) The family has a tractor bearing No. U.P. 52-S-0174.
(4) The family has a Maruti Car bearing No. MH-02-M-7287.
(5) The family has a Scooter, therefore, the income of the petitioner was much higher.
None of these findings except no. 1 that her certificate had been granted to the effect that she was having the income of Rs. 1600/- per month has been challenged by the petitioner. In the petition nowhere it has been mentioned that the family of the petitioner does not possess the aforesaid vehicles nor it is explained in whose name the vehicles are registered. If the Tractor is owned by the petitioner's family there may be some presumption, as suggested by Sri C.K. Rai learned Standing Counsel, that the petitioner's family must be having agricultural land also.
In view of the above, the petitioner failed to lay down any factual foundation to dislodge the findings of fact recorded by the respondent no. 3. No pleadings in these respect had been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not furnish any explanation as to how the petition has been filed without challenging any of the findings recorded by respondent no. 3.
In view of the above, petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.