Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1932 (ALL)

Virendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2013-07-23

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Satya Poot Mehrotra and Anjani Kumar Mishra, JJ. – The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, making the following prayers : "(a) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.6.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2. (b) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 to conduct an unbiased fresh enquiry and pass the appropriate orders in respect of fair price shop of the respondents. (c) To issue, a suitable writ which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 2. It appears that the respondent No. 3 was having Licence in respect of the fair price shop in question. On a complaint made by certain persons including the petitioner, the Licence of the respondent No. 3 in respect of the fair price shop in question was suspended by the order dated 7.6.2013. The respondent No. 3 was required to submit his written explanation in regard to the irregularities allegedly committed by him in respect of the fair price shop in question. 3. The respondent No. 3 submitted his written explanation dated 22.6.2013. 4. The respondent No. 2 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District-Agra) considered the written explanation submitted by the respondent No. 3 and passed the impugned order dated 26.6.2013. The respondent No. 2 in the said order concluded that the explanation submitted by the respondent No. 3 was not fully satisfactory, and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was given strong warning for future, and further, Rs 5.000 was confiscated out of the security deposit made by the respondent No. 3, and the Licence of the respondent No. 3 in respect of the fair price shop in question was restored. 5. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 6. We have heard Shri Anay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. 5. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 6. We have heard Shri Anay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that the petitioner was merely a complainant alongwith certain other persons, and on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner and others, the respondent No. 2 by the order dated 7.6.2013 suspended the licence of the respondent No. 3 in respect of the fair price shop in question and called for explanation of the respondent No. 3 in regard to the irregularities allegedly committed by him. 8. After considering the written explanation submitted by the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 26.6.2013 giving strong warning to the respondent No. 3 and further imposing a penalty by way of confiscating an amount of Rs 5,000 from the security amount deposited by the respondent No. 3. and the licence of the respondent No. 3 was restored. 9. Thus, on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner and others, suitable action has already been taken by the authority concerned against the respondent No. 3 while restoring the licence of the respondent No. 3 in respect of the fair price shop in question. 10. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance in regard to the order dated 26.6.2013, nor can any of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition be granted. 11. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.