Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

INDRA JEET SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Indra Jeet Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 4956 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 7621 (25 April 2007)

 

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. 21.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4956 of 2006

Indra Jeet Singh                            ...               Petitioner

Versus

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

2

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.

Dt. 25.4.2007.

BM/-


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.