Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1467 (ALL)

Ram Sajiwan Kori v. State of U. P.

2015-05-29

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Restoration application is allowed. 2. Despite time was granted on 14.9.2012 no counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel. 3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself without giving further time for filing counter-affidavit. 4. Challenge is to the cancellation of agreement of fairprice of the petitioner on 25.5.2006. The suspension order was passed on the allegations therein pursuant to the communication dated 25.3.2006 sent by the District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh. The charge was of non distribution of foodgrains for the month of February, 2006 to the Primary School Udaipur, IInd, Block Sangipur District Pratapgarh. 5. From the suspension order, it is apparent that no independent inquiry has been conducted by the licensing authority and it has proceeded on the information given by the District Education Officer. The petitioner has submitted explanation on 31.3.2006 stating therein that he had distributed foodgrains of mid-day meals scheme for the month of January, 2006 but the Principal of the institution namely, Primary School Udaipur, IInd, Block Sangipur District Pratapgarh did not give certificate and hence they stock for the month of February, 2006 of midday meal scheme were not supplied to the petitioner. The cancellation order was passed on 25.5.2006 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The explanation has been rejected on the ground that satisfactory record has not been produced by the petitioner in support of his assertion. 6. Further ground of cancellation is that the petitioner did not get distribution certificate of the Gram Pradhan. He had committed illegality in distribution of foodgrains from January, 2006 to April, 2006 as he did not make distribution within time and entries in ration card were fraudulently made by him. The petitioner made distribution without getting certificate from the competent authority. 7. In appeal the petitioner had submitted sale and stock register for the months of January, February, March, and April, 2006. He had also submitted other documents to indicate that the stock was certified by the competent authority. These documents having been filed by the petitioner, ought to have been considered by the appellate authority. The appellate authority simply affirmed the order without looking to the suspension order, which was passed on different charges leveled against the petitioner. He had also submitted other documents to indicate that the stock was certified by the competent authority. These documents having been filed by the petitioner, ought to have been considered by the appellate authority. The appellate authority simply affirmed the order without looking to the suspension order, which was passed on different charges leveled against the petitioner. There is no finding recorded at all by the licensing authority or the appellate authority on the charge of non distribution of foodgrains under the Midday Meal Scheme for the month of February, 2006. 8. Both the orders are quashed, accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to restore the fairprice shop of the petitioner forthwith.