Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 692 (ALL)

Suresh Chandra v. Accounts officer

1988-08-05

D.S.SINHA, S.K.DHAON

body1988
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a Communication dated 9th November, 1987 sent by the Accounts Officer, T.D.M. Allahabad, informing him that his complaint has been looked into and it has been decided that no rebate would be allowed to him (the petitioner). 2. The petitioner had, on 15th May, 1987, made a representation to the District Manager of Telephones, Allahabad, stating therein that he had received an inflated bill with regard to the local calls. He had pointed out in the representation that in the preceding months he had been billed on a substantially lower amount. He prayed that an enquiry may be held and the meter may be checked. His representation is purported to have been disposed of by the said communication dated 9th November, 1987. 3. Sri Shushil Kumar, learned Government Advocate, has been heard in opposition to this petition on behalf of the respondent. He prays for time to file a reply. As we are of the opinion that the impugned communication is liable to be struck down on the short - ground that it has been passed mechanically and without the application of mind, no useful purpose would be served by filling a counter - affidavit. We are, therefore, propose to dispose of this petition without a counter - affidavit. 4. In the impugned order there is not a whisper of the representation made by the petitioner. The impugned communication has been sent on a cyclostyle form. The relevant part in which has been retained and irrelevant part has been crossed out. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that the representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of in accordance with law. We, therefore, quash the impugned communication and direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. If the representation of the petitioner is not accepted, reasons shall be given in support of the order of rejection. The respondent shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order before the relevant authority. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a supplementary representation by giving full facts of his case. 5. With these directions the petition is disposed of finally. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a supplementary representation by giving full facts of his case. 5. With these directions the petition is disposed of finally. A certified copy of this order shall be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within 24 hours on payment of usual charges