Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2236 (ALL)

Yogendra v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-09-05

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2013
Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.:- We have heard Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vinod Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Badaut (respondent no.3). 3. It appears that the respondent no.5 is the licencee of the Fair Price Shop in question. It is submitted by Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned and he made the complaint in regard to the irregularities being allegedly committed by the respondent no.5. 4. It further appears that in view of the complaint made against the respondent no.5, the Licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question was suspended by the order dated 15.11.2011. Thereupon, the respondent no.5 filed an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner concerned. By the order dated 30.11.2011, the operation of the suspension order dated 15.11.2011 was stayed. 5. Subsequently, by the order dated 14.3.2012, the said Appeal filed by the respondent no.5 was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner concerned. Thereafter, by a Communication dated 30.5.2012, charge-sheet was given to the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 submitted his explanation dated 18.6.2012 in respect of the charges levelled against him. The respondent no.3 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Badaut) passed the impugned order dated 27.4.2013 after considering in detail the explanation submitted by the respondent no.5 in respect of each of the charges levelled against him. The respodnent no.3 concluded that the charges levelled against the respondent no.5 were not proved and accordingly, the Licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question was restored. 6. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition before this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 7. Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3 has acted illegally in passing the order dated 27.4.2013 restoring the Licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. It is submitted that the suspension order dated 15.11.2011 having been upheld in the Appeal, the Licence of the respondent no.5 was liable to be cancelled. It is submitted that the suspension order dated 15.11.2011 having been upheld in the Appeal, the Licence of the respondent no.5 was liable to be cancelled. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner, who is stated to be Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, is merely a complainant, and the Writ Petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable. 9. It is further submitted that the upholding of the suspension order dated 15.11.2011 by the Divisional Commissioner in Appeal was not relevant while deciding the question of cancellation of the Licence of the respondent no.5 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question on consideration of the explanation submitted by the respondent no.5. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that the petitioner, who is stated to be the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, is merely a complainant. On the complaint of the petitioner, the Licence of the respondent no.5 was suspended on 15.11.2011. The Appeal filed by the respondent no.5 was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner concerned on 14.3.2012. Thereafter, charge-sheet was given to the respondent no.5, and the respondent no.5 submitted his explanation in respect of the charges levelled against him. After detailed consideration of the charges levelled aqgainst the respondent no.5 and the explanation submitted by the respondent no.5, the respondent no.3 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Badaut) has passed the impugned order dated 27.4.2013. We are of the view that the petitioner, who is merely a complainant, cannot raise any grievance in regard to the said order dated 27.4.2013. 12. As regards the question of upholding of the order of suspension in the Appeal by the Divisional Commissioner concerned, we are of the view that the dismissal of the Appeal of the respondent no.5 in respect of the suspension order was not relevant while considering the question of cancellation of the Licence of the respondent no.5 on the basis of the explanation submitted by the respondent no.5. 13. It is noteworthy that in the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner concerned, it has been observed that the suspension order was an order interim in nature and the chargesheet was still to be given to the respondent no.5. 13. It is noteworthy that in the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner concerned, it has been observed that the suspension order was an order interim in nature and the chargesheet was still to be given to the respondent no.5. In the circumstances, the Divisional Commissioner in the order dated 14.3.2012 concluded that the Appeal was without force, and the same was liable to be dismissed. The Appeal was accordingly dismissed. 14. The suspension order dated 15.11.2011 was passed merely on, prima-facie, satisfaction . Upholding of the said suspension order could not come in the way of the authority concerned while deciding the question of cancellation of the Licence of Fair Price Shop in question in the light of the explanation submitted by the respondent no.5. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________