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


Gram Panchayat Rudauli v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 46824 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16120 (15 September 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. 21

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46824 of   2006

Gram Panchayat Rudauli   ...........................................   Petitioner


State of U.P. & others............................................       Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

By this  writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur allowing the appeal filed by  respondent no. 5  and  the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.   The Sub Divisional Magistrate by order dated 25.3.2006 cancelled the fair price agreement of  respondent no. 5 against which an appeal was filed by respondent no. 5 before the Commissioner.  The Commissioner by  impugned order dated 7.6.2006 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate.  The appellate authority by passing the order has observed that the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall hold an enquiry in accordance  the rules against the petitioner.  The appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground  that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner.  Several allegations were not mentioned in the show cause notice and opportunity was not given to the petitioner.  Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the appellate authority has only directed for holding an enquiry and the said order did not entitle the respondent no. 5 for restoration of supply.  He submits that the petitioner was  not heard.    


I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The appellate authority has set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 25.3.2006 by which  fair price agreement  was cancelled.  Specific finding has been recorded  by the appellate authority that  respondent no. 5  was not given proper opportunity before cancelling  fair price agreement.  On setting aside the order dated 25.3.2006 the position existed prior to 25.3.2006 stood restored including  the fair price agreement. No error has been committed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in restoring the supply. After cancellation of fair price agreement  the shop was attached  with some another fair price agreement holder.  Thus the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that only enquiry was ordered, cannot be accepted.    It is true that the appellate authority has observed that the enquiry be held against the petitioner in accordance with law.


The submission of the petitioner that he was not heard also needs consideration.  Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate the petitioner was not party. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has initiated proceedings against the petitioner on basis of report submitted  by Supply Inspector.   The petitioner's reply of respondent no. 5 was considered  and agreement was cancelled.   The appellate authority did not commit any error in not hearing the objection of  petitioner  who was not party in the proceedings.  Thus no error can be found in the order on that ground.   The order passed by the Commissioner dated 7.6.2006  as well as the order dated 16.6.2006  passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.  However, in view of the order of the appellate authority  that the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall complete the enquiry proceedings against the respondent no. 5, the Sub Divisional Magistrate may enquire the matter  and take appropriate proceeding as observed by the appellate authority.


Subject to above observation the  writ petition is 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.