Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1808 (ALL)

Satish Kumar v. State of U. P.

2013-07-09

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2013
JUDGMENT The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making the following prayers : - "I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concerned to initiate the proceedings against the respondent No. 5 under the provisions of E.C. Act in pursuance to the enquiry report dated 6.3.2013/ 1.3.2013 for the end of justice. II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concerned to ensure the compliance of the provisions of E.C. Act against the respondent No. 5. III) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV) Award cost." 2. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it appears that the respondent No. 5 was having licence for running the Fair Price Shop in question. On complaint being made by the petitioner regarding the irregularities being allegedly committed by the respondent no.5, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Lalganj, District Mirzapur (respondent No. 4) passed an Order dated 6th April, 2013 suspending the licence of the respondent No. 5 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question, and calling upon the respondent no.5 to submit his explanation with evidence regarding the alleged irregularities in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. 3. The Card Holders of the Fair Price Shop in question have been attached to the Fair Price Shop of one Naresh situate near-by in Gram Panchayat, Gajariya. 4. While the matter is under consideration before the respondent No. 4, pursuant to the said Order dated 6th April, 2013, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 5. We have heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. 6. Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, have not been taken against the respondent No. 5 despite the inquiry report having been submitted in respect of the respondent No. 5. 7. We have considered the submissions made by Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 8. 7. We have considered the submissions made by Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and we find ourselves unable to accept the same. 8. On the basis of the inquiry report submitted in respect of the respondent No. 5, the aforesaid Order dated 6th April, 2013 has already been passed by the respondent No. 4, and the proceedings are going on before the respondent No. 5. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter. 9. The reliefs, as prayed for in the Writ Petition, are misconceived, and there is no occasion to grant the same. 10. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.