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


Smt. Khatoon v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Food & C. Supply & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 26062 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 1476 (19 January 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).


                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26062 of 2004

Smt. Khatoon                    Vs.          State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner was granted licence for running a fair price shop. On the basis of certain complaints lodged against the petitioner in April and May, 2002, by order dated 8.7.2002 passed by the licensing authority, the licence of the petitioner was placed under suspension. However, after considering the explanation of the petitioner, which was not found to be totally satisfactory, the order of suspension was though recalled on 29.7.2002 but after clearly specifying that since the charges had been partially proved, the petitioner was being strictly warned and a fine of Rs.250/- was imposed against the petitioner. Then again in August, 2002 certain complaints were filed against the petitioner, which were enquired into by the Supply Inspector and on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, her licence was again placed under suspension on 21.9.2002. Thereafter a charge-sheet dated 16.10.2002 was served on the petitioner. The final enquiry report was submitted on 23.12.2002 (Annexure-C.A.9 to the counter affidavit) on the basis of which the licensing authority passed order dated 31.12.2002 cancelling the licence of the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the appellate authority, respondent no. 2 on 5.7.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 31.12.2002 and 5.7.2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

I have heard Sri V.P.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The charge-sheet dated 16.10.2002 clearly mentioned that the majority of the residents of the village were dissatisfied with the working of the petitioner, and specific allegations with regard to the shortcomings in the distribution of nine card holders had also been given, besides other charges. The copy of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet has not been filed by the petitioner. In the writ petition also there is no explanation of the irregularities pointed out in the cases of nine card holders. The petitioner is only relying on a letter of the Supply Inspector filed as Annexure-C.A.8 to the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that after the statements of 145 villagers who deposed against the petitioner and 50 villagers who deposed in favour of the petitioner, had been recorded, there was some confusion and the preliminary enquiry of the Supply Inspector could not be completed. It is only on this basis the petitioner is asserting that the enquiry report cannot be relied upon as according to the petitioner, the enquiry was not completed.

It is pertinent to note that the said preliminary enquiry report was of September, 2002 on the basis of which the licence of the petitioner was placed under suspension and it was thereafter that the proper charge-sheet dated 16.10.2002 was submitted against the petitioner. As already mentioned above, the petitioner has neither filed his reply to the charge-sheet nor in the writ petition has he given any explanation with regard to the irregularities as have been pointed out in the charge-sheet. By the impugned orders it has been categorically held that the petitioner has committed several irregularities with regard to distribution to the card holders and that the majority of the villager are dissatisfied with the working of the petitioner and also that the Gram Sabha has passed a resolution for cancelling the licence of the petitioner.  These are all questions of fact which cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has not be able to point out any illegality in the impugned orders. As such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this writ petition.

This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.




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.