Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2938 (ALL)

Narendra Kumar S/O Ram Lakhan & Anr. v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Anr.

2010-09-22

ANIL KUMAR

body2010
Anil Kumar, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties' counsel, writ petition is disposed of finally at admission stage. 3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following main relief:- "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.08.2010 passed by opposite party no. 1 in Appeal no. 438(Narendra Kumar Vs. State) and Appeal No. 439(Ram Bahadur Vs. State) so far it relates to the lodging of the FIR under Section 3/7 E.C. Act(Contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition)" 4. Initially by way of an agreement petitioners were granted the Fair Price Shop in the Village Panchayat Block Babhanjot, Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda under Public Distribution System but the same were cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gonda. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners preferred appeal [(Appeal no. 438 Narendra Kumar Vs. State) & (Appeal no. 439 (Ram Bahadur Vs. State)] before the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, on 11.08.2010, the appellate authority passed an order that show-cause-notice are issued to the appellants through their counsel as to why the proceedings under Section 3/7 of U.P. Essential Commodity Act should not be initiated against them. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 6. Sri Ambrish Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the identical circumstances, this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 5093(MS) of 2010(Bindra Prasad Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda) has held as under :- "After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner the order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the opposite party i.e. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall not be under obligation to submit reply on the notice issued under section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act by the Divisional Commissioner himself; whereas liberty is granted to the authority who is competent for the said action to proceed in accordance with law. In the aforesaid terms, without interfering in the proceeding of the appeal I hereby dispose of the writ petition finally." 7. In the aforesaid terms, without interfering in the proceeding of the appeal I hereby dispose of the writ petition finally." 7. Accordingly, a request has been made on behalf of the petitioners that the similar relief may be given to the petitioners. 8. Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute to the above said position. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the order order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure no. 1) passed by the respondent no. 1 (Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda) is set aside to the extent by which the reply have been sought from the petitioners in respect to the show-cause-notice through their counsel as to why proceedings under under Section 3/7 of U.P. Essential Commodity Act, should not be initiated against them. It is clarified that further proceedings before the appellate authority shall take place and final order be passed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in accordance with law in the appeal pending before the said authority. 10. Further, if the respondents may think fit, they may take appropriate action in the matter in question against the petitioners under Section 3/7 of U.P. Essential Commodity Act as per law. 11. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of finally.