Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3018 (ALL)

RAM SWAROOP v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-12-12

TARUN AGARWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected. The petitioner preferred writ petition No. 52994 of 2006, which was allowed by an order dated 19.9.2008 and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to re-decide the matter in the light of the observations made therein. 3. Before the writ Court, it was contended that there were two enquiry reports. The first enquiry report is dated 24.12.2005 and the second is dated 28.12.2005 and that the first enquiry report was given in the presence of the petitioner and that the second enquiry report is an ex parte report given in the absence of the petitioner. The writ Court, while allowing the writ petition and remitting the matter to the appellate authority had directed the appellate authority to consider the first enquiry report while deciding the matter on merits. 4. Inspite of this direction, the appellate authority did not consider the first enquiry report and again rejected the appeal of the petitioner by an order dated 11.9.2009. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed writ petition No. 63784 of 2009, which was allowed by a judgment and order dated 25.11.2009 on the short ground that the direction of the writ Court in its order dated 19.9.2008, namely; the first enquiry report, was not considered. The writ Court, accordingly, directed the Commissioner i.e. the appellate authority to re-decide the matter in the light of the observations made by the writ Court in its judgment and order dated 19.9.2008. 5. The appellate authority again rejected the appeal by its order dated 3.3.2010 without considering the directions of the writ Court namely; to consider the first enquiry report. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned appelalte order, the Court finds that the appellate order has not considered the first enquiry report inspite of the direction of the writ Court on two different occasions to consider the first enquiry report and thereafter decide the matter on merits. The Court is prima facie of the opinion that the appellate authority is in gross contempt of the orders of the writ Court dated 19.9.2008 passed in writ petition No. 52994 of 2006 and the judgment and order dated 25.11.2009 passed in writ petition No. 63784 of 2009. 7. The Court is prima facie of the opinion that the appellate authority is in gross contempt of the orders of the writ Court dated 19.9.2008 passed in writ petition No. 52994 of 2006 and the judgment and order dated 25.11.2009 passed in writ petition No. 63784 of 2009. 7. The Court finds that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the first enquiry report. The Court finds that the appellate authority is refusing to consider the first enquiry report. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority, being passed without any application of mind, and the order of the Prescribed Authority are quashed. Since no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter since the authorities are not inclined to consider the first enquiry report as well as the directions of the writ Court, the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 8. This Court finds that pursuant to the orders of the writ Court dated 19.9.2008 and 25.11.2009, the appellate authority, was Radha S. Chauhan, the Commissioner of Agra Division, Agra and on both occasions she has passed the order without considering the directions of the writ Court. Prima facie it seems to be deliberate act in passing the order mechanically, without considering the directions of the writ Court and, therefore, is prima facie guilty and in contempt of the Court. The Court, accordingly, takes suo moto cognizance and directs the registry to register separately a contempt case, which would be titled as “Contempt of Radha S.Chauhan, the then Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra posted now posted as Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi”. The registry will annex in this contempt application, the order of the Court dated 19.9.2008 passed in writ petition No. 52994 of 2006 as Annexure-1, the order of the appellate authority dated 11.9.2009 as Annexure-2, the order of the writ Court dated 25.11.2009 passed in writ petition No. 63784 of 2009 as Annexure-3, the order of the appellate authority dated 3.3.2010 as Anneuxre-4 and the order of the writ Court dated 12.12.2013 passed in in this writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 13731 of 2010 as Annexure-5. 9. 9. Registry to issue notice to Radha S.Chauhan alongwith the annexures to show-cause why she should not be punished for contempt of the orders of the Court dated 19.9.2008 passed in writ petition No. 52994 of 2006 and order dated 15.11.2009 passed in writ petition No. 63784 of 2009 fixing 20.1.2014, before the appropriate Court dealing with contempt matters.