Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jaitu Ram v. S.D.M.,Phoolpur Azamgarh & Others - WRIT - C No. 13552 of 1999 [2003] RD-AH 46 (21 March 2003)


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).




Jaitu Ram ----- Petitioner


S.D.M., Phoolpur,

District Azamgarh & another -----       Respondents.


Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.2.1999 by which the appellate authority, i.e., Divisional Commissioner, Azamgarh has allowed the appeal of the petitioner setting aside the order dated 2.6.1998, passed by the Deputy Collector canceling the agency of fair price shop.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was having the agency of a fair price shop in village Kushalgaon for a long period and the said agency stood terminated vide order dated 2.6.1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 29.2.1999. Petitioner has preferred the writ petition being aggrieved of the said order on the ground that the appellate authority should not have asked the statutory authority to pass the order afresh after following the procedure prescribed under law.

Heard Shri H.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K.Banerji, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the appellate authority was of the considered opinion that termination of the agency vide order dated 2.6.1998 was not in accordance with law. The appeal should have been allowed straight way quashing the order without providing an opportunity further to the statutory authority to pass an appropriate order afresh and the petition deserves to be allowed only to this extent.

From the impugned order dated 19.2.1999 it appears that no proper resolution has been passed by the Gaon Sabha considering the grievances of the villagers nor the meeting was held properly nor the show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to cancellation of the said order. Considering the grounds as mentioned in the impugned order, the appellate authority has accepted the appeal observing that as the aforesaid grounds were tenable, a fresh proceeding be taken in accordance with law and an appropriate order may be passed.

There is no other material before this Court to consider as to whether there was some other grievance also before the appellate authority nor petitioner considered it proper to place the order of termination dated 2.6.1998 on record nor Shri Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner is in a position to produce the memo of appeal filed before the appellate authority and it is difficult in such a situation to consider as to whether there had been some other grievance of the petitioner which has not been considered by the appellate authority. If the petitioner's grounds have been found tenable by the appellate authority and his appeal has been accepted, the order of the appellate authority to consider the case afresh cannot be held suffering from any irregularity or illegality and it may not warrant any interference whatsoever.

Moreso, there is no occasion for the Court to consider any kind of this writ petition vaguely drafted and without filing any document to substantiate the averments.  

It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/ adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no           obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC  2181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the  party raising  the  point,  if he is  the  writ petitioner,  must  plead and  prove  such facts  by evidence which must appear from the  writ  petition  and  if  he  is  the respondent,  from the counter  affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and  a writ  petition  or  a  counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e.  a plaint  or written  statement, the facts and not the evidence  are required to be pleaded.  In a writ petition or   in the   counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it."

Similar view has   been reiterated in Larsen & Tubro Vs.  State of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S.  Raghunathan & ors., (1998) 7 SCC 66;   Ram Narain Arora Vs.  Asha Rani & ors.,(1999) 1  SCC  141;  Chitra Kumari Vs.  Union  of India & ors.,  (2001)  3 SCC 208;  and  State  of U.P.  & ors.  Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey, (2001) 4 SCC 78.

In Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 133, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."

The Court cannot travel beyond the scope/pleadings of the writ petition. (Vide Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & ors. Vs. S. Vasudeva, AIR 2000 SC 767).

In view of the above, the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Singh does not render any assistance to the petitioners.

As the petitioner has filed this writ petition in a most casual and cavalier manner without putting any relevant document on record except the order impugned passed by the appellate authority and the petitioner has not considered it appropriate to file even the basic order dated 2.6.1998, it is not desirable to consider any further averments made on behalf of the petitioner.

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.




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


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 |

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