High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Indra Jeet Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 4956 of 2006  RD-AH 7621 (25 April 2007)
Court No. 21.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4956 of 2006
Indra Jeet Singh ... Petitioner
State of U.P. and others ... Respondents.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Sri Ranveer Singh appears for the respondents.
The petitioner's authorisation to distribute scheduled commodities was cancelled on the ground that a first information report was lodged against him for allowing a person to take away 220 liters of kerosene oil whereas other card holders were standing in the queue. They made a complaint and got the person who was taking away 220 liters kerosene oil arrested and the kerosene oil seized on 16.11.2003. The Sub Divisional Magistrate allowed an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the deficiency in the stocks of the kerosene oil. It was found that the distribution register was not filled up and that in the month of October and November, 2003 by one stroke of pen kerosene (5 liters each) oil was shown to be distributed to all the card holders without disclosing the price. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Azamgarh recorded the findings that the petitioner had committed gross irregularities in distribution and cancelled the authorisation. On 23.9.2004. The appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was dismissed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh on 21.12.2005.
It is contended that the village pradhan Shri Dharm Raj was enimical with the petitioner and was keeping a grudge. The petitioner has alleged malafides against the village
pradhan. The petitioner also alleges that he did not make any irregularities in distribution of kerosene oil and that the allegations of sale of 220 liters of kerosene oil to one person without authorisation were incorrect. There were no complaints against the petitioner since he was distributing essential commodities.
The findings that the petitioner allowed a unauthorised person to take away 220 liters of kerosene oil and that the petitioner could not explain the deficiency in the stock register and further that the entire distribution register was filled with one stroke of pen without disclosing the price of scheduled commodities are findings of fact which do not require any interference from this Court. The malafides against the village pradhan have not been proved. It cannot be said that both the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Commissioner were influenced by the village Pradhan.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.