Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 636 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2012-03-15

A.P.SAHI

body2012
ORDER : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. This is a writ petition arising out of orders passed in a matter relating to cancellation of a fair price shop licence which was granted to the petitioner. Sri. Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings are in violation of principle of natural Justice, inasmuch as, neither the notices were served on the petitioner and even otherwise inspite of asking for the material on the basis whereof action was being taken, nothing was made known to the petitioner, nor any enquiry was held and as such the impugned orders are vitiated. He submits that as a matter of fact the petitioner voluntarily filed an application/explanation on 30th April, 2006 which has also not been considered by the District Supply Officer who passed the impugned order on 12.5.2006. 2. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy whereafter the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed affirming the order of the District Supply Officer. 3. The main contention raised by Sri. Verma appears to be that inspite of repeated attempts no material was made available to the petitioner nor any proper enquiry was held to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the suspension order. The petitioner also alleges that the copy of the suspension order was not served on him and no charge-sheet was formally framed for the purpose of holding an enquiry. 4. The argument has to be assessed in the background of what has been averred by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner himself after the suspension order was passed, he approached the authority and made a request for supply of the documents as also submitted his explanation in eight paragraphs. The said explanation is on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The same indicates the reply attempted in relation to eight charges that were referred to in the suspension order and have been reproduced in the impugned order dated 12.5.2006. 5. The grounds of appeal which have been filed alongwith the writ petition, nowhere indicate any grounds having been taken, that inspite of the submission of the said explanation on 30th April, 2006 there is a non-consideration of the same. 5. The grounds of appeal which have been filed alongwith the writ petition, nowhere indicate any grounds having been taken, that inspite of the submission of the said explanation on 30th April, 2006 there is a non-consideration of the same. The plea appears to be an afterthought and has been brought before this Court for the purpose of this writ petition. There is, therefore, no material to indicate that any such reply was even attempted to by the petitioner. In this background the claim that no proper enquiry was held, cannot be entertained as the petitioner himself did not co-operate with the authorities by providing all the stock register and other documents that had been demanded from him. The fact that he had notice of the suspension cannot be disputed. In such a situation, if the petitioner himself has failed to co-operate with the authorities then the impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground of non-holding of an enquiry and non-consideration of the material as sought to be placed by the petitioner. In the absence of any such material no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.