Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1641 (ALL)

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-22

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2009
S. P. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 20. 01. 2006 (Annexure No. 15 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi (Respondent No. 2.) in Appeal No. 220 of 2005, and the order dated 06. 06. 2005 (Annexure No. 13 to the Writ Petition), passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/deputy Collector, Tehsil Mariyahu, District Jaunpur (Respondent No. 3 ). ( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner was licensee of the Fair Price Shop in question. A show-cause notice/charge-sheet dated 20th December, 2004 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) was issued to the petitioner levelling the following four charges: 1 ). At the time of enquiry by the Supply Inspector on 2nd December, 2004, the Fair Price Shop in question was found closed, and the reason for closure was not indicated on the shop. 2 ). In the month of December 2004, the petitioner had lifted Wheat 3. 25 quintal and Rice 4. 20 quintal of Nabad Yojana and BPL wheat 11. 25 quintal. On account of closure of the shop the stock could not be physically verified. 3 ). BPL card holders contacted at the time of enquiry informed that they had not received food grains for several months. This showed that the petitioner was not distributing the food grains which was indicative of serious irregularity. 4 ). During enquiry, it transpired that the petitioner was not distributing kerosene oil every month, and in-stead, was distributing kerosene oil to the consumers on an interval of a month, which was irregularity. ( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner did not submit any explanation in response to the said show-cause notice/charge-sheet. There-upon, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mariyahu, Jaunpur (Respondent No. 3) by the order dated 14. 02. 2005 directed for forfeiture of the security deposited by the petitioner, and cancelled the license of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. Copy of the said order dated 14. 02. 2005 has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14658 of 2005 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 07. 03. Copy of the said order dated 14. 02. 2005 has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14658 of 2005 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 07. 03. 2005 disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. Relevant portion of the said order dated 07. 03. 2005 is reproduced below: ". . . . . . . . . . . In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner may file a representation before the respondent no. 1 within three weeks. In case the representation is filed it may be decided by the respondent No. 1 by a reasoned order at an early date, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order, necessary documents and a duly stamped self addressed envelop along with the representation. The concerned authority after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the impugned order dated 14. 02. 2005 shall be kept in abeyance. In case the petitioner does not file the representation within the aforesaid three weeks, this order will not be effective. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. " ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the said order dated 07. 03. 2005, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14. 03. 2005, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said representation shows that while the petitioner disputed the correctness of charge Nos. 1 and 2, as mentioned in the aforesaid show-cause notice/charge-sheet dated 20th December, 2004, he partially accepted charge No. 3. However, the petitioner did not give any reply to charge No. 4 contained in the aforesaid charge sheet dated 20th December, 2004. ( 6 ) THE Sub-Divisional Officer, Mariyahu, Jaunpur (Respondent No. 3), after a detailed examination of the record, inter-alia, concluded that the petitioner had committed large scale irregularity in the distribution of food grains under BPL and Antyodaya Yojana and in the distribution of kerosene oil which was clear violation of the provisions of the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 1990 and the conditions of the agreement. Accordingly, it was held that the cancellation of license of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question by the order dated 14. 02. 2005 would continue to remain operative. ( 7 ) THE petitioner thereupon filed an appeal being Appeal No. 220 of 2005. Copy of the memorandum of appeal has been filed as Annexure No. 14 to the Writ Petition. By the order dated 20th January, 2006 the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi (Respondent No. 2) dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner. After noticing in detail the facts of the case, various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the contentions raised by the rival parties, the respondent No. 2 concluded that no interference was called for with the order dated 06. 06. 2005 passed by the Respondent No. 3. ( 8 ) I have heard Sri Manish Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. It is submitted by Sri Manish Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) did not consider the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and passed a cryptic order without dealing with the various grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal. ( 9 ) I have perused the memorandum of appeal, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 14 to the Writ Petition. The grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal are general and vague in nature, and there is no specific challenge to various findings recorded by the Respondent No. 3 in its order dated 06. 06. 2005. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) shows that it has noticed in detail the facts of the case, various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, and thereafter, has reached the conclusion as mentioned above. In the circumstances, the submission made by Sri Manish Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) is a cryptic order, in my view, cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) IT is note-worthy that pursuant to the order dated 07. 03. 2005 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. In the circumstances, the submission made by Sri Manish Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) is a cryptic order, in my view, cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) IT is note-worthy that pursuant to the order dated 07. 03. 2005 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14658 of 2005, the petitioner was given full opportunity to meet the charges leveled against him. ( 11 ) A perusal of the order dated 06. 06. 2005 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 20. 01. 2006 passed by the Respondent No. 2 shows that the authorities below, on a consideration of the record, have recorded findings of fact in regard to various charges levelled against the petitioner. No perversity or illegality or infirmity has been shown in the said findings. In the circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned orders. Sri Manish Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Clause (6) of Paragraph 21 of the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, monthly allocation of food grains etc. is done only on receipt of a certificate issued by the Committee, mentioned in the said Clause (6), clearly mentioning that prior months allocations have been distributed by the agent in accordance with the rules. ( 12 ) THIS contention raised by Sri Manish Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is being raised for the first time in the writ petition. No such plea was raised before any of the authorities below. No factual foundation has been laid for raising the above plea. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the above plea for the first time in the writ petition. ( 13 ) IN view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the writ petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. .