Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2329 (ALL)

RAM KISHORE v. STATE OF U. P.

2008-11-24

RAKESH TIWARI

body2008
JUDGMENT RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal. Banda by which his claim has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not preferred appeal within the period stipulated 30 days under U.P. Commodity Control Order, 2004. 3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there has no compliance of the provisions contained in the Essential Commodities Control Order, 2004 has not• been mad while passing the impugned order dated 14.11.2008 and there is no provision to file appeal before the Commissioner against the impugned aforesaid order. 4. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the license of fair price shop was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Banda. On an application moved by the petitioner inter alia that he is unable to run the fair price shop. The aforesaid application had been filed by the petitioner inter alia that he has submitted his application without pressure for surrendering of the shop from any quarter. 5. After more than a month an application dated 27th November, 2006 appears to have been moved by the petitioner and therein affidavits of some villagers have also been appended inter alia that he had submitted application for surrendering of the license of fair price shop under the pressure of the Gram Pradhan. On this application, the District Magistrate considered the two affidavits filed alongwith an application of the petitioner dated 27th November, 2006 that the villagers are facing difficulty in taking essential commodities from fair price shop hence attached the ration-card holders of the petitioner with another shop. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the observations made in the impugned order wherein findings of fact has been given by the Commissioner, Banda in appeal No. 74.2006-07. The subsequent application of the petitioner alongwith two affidavits of the villagers for restoration of his fair price shop is pending. In the application filed by the petitioner for surrendering the license of his fair price shop, the petitioner has not even made a whisper that he is surrendering his license of the fair price shop under any pressure by the Gram Pradhan. 7. In the application filed by the petitioner for surrendering the license of his fair price shop, the petitioner has not even made a whisper that he is surrendering his license of the fair price shop under any pressure by the Gram Pradhan. 7. It is apparent that he did not move any application immediately thereafter and allegations of political pressure appears to be afterthought which is also apparent from Annexure No.2 of the application dated 26th November, 2006 alongwith affidavit had been moved after more than one month where only two villagers had filed their affidavits and majority of them not. 8. The petitioner wants to challenge the order impugned for get his disputed facts adjudicated as to whether the letter dated 19 10.2006 submitted by him, was obtained under pressure. Such disputed question can only be decided in suit wherein the Courts are best suited for taking oral evidence for deciding such disputed question of facts. 9. As far as writ proceedings under Article 226 are concerned I find that the Courts below have recorded a categorical findings of fact that the statement of the petitioner is contradictory and that he had ample opportunity to have challenged the order of the District Magistrate immediately after the letter dated 19.10.2006 for surrendering fair price shop was moved by him allegedly under influence of the Gram Pradhan. He could not have waited for a month. The District Magistrate has passed order in favour of the petitioner restoring shop, which has already been attached with another shop after giving notice to the parties concerned. 10. In my opinion the petitioner has failed to prove that letter dated 19.10.2006 was submitted by him under pressure merely on the basis of letter, dated 27.11.2006 moved by him before the District Magistrate after one month of the letter surrendering his fair price shop. 11. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.