Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1325 (ALL)

Chandra Shekhar v. Addl. Commissioner (Food & Civil Supplies) Lucknow Division

2016-04-08

SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2016
JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. 1. Heard Sri Amitabh Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.12.2013, passed by the Upziladhikari, Hasanganj, District Unnao as contained in Annexure-7 and the appellate order dated 22.8.2014, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Prasashan), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Annexure-9. 3. Petitioner was a licence holder of fair price shop of Gram Kharehra, Vikas Khand Nawabganj, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao. 4. Some complainants have approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.4432 (M/B) of 2011 against the irregularities committed by the petitioner while running the fair price shop. The above petition was disposed of by this Court on 11.5.2011 with direction that the District Magistrate, Unnao, shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. 5. Petitioner's licence of fair price shop was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Unnao by order dated 5.8.2011. He went in appeal against the above order of District Magistrate before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed by order dated 23.4.2012, against which the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3141 of 2012 (M/S). This Court by order dated 7.8.2013 allowed Writ Petition No.3141 of 2012 (M/S) and quashed the aforesaid orders dated 5.8.2011 and 23.4.2012 by relying the case of Shakir Ali v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others [2012 (30 LCD 448]. The Court had also considered the case of Ram Kripal Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No.4011 (M/S) of 2010. While allowing the above writ petition the Court directed the District Magistrate, Unnao to conduct a fresh inquiry after giving the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. The District Magistrate instead of deciding the matter himself, relegated the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has decided the matter by order dated 26.12.2013, vide Annexure-7 referred to above. 6. Counsel for petitioner has challenged the above order dated 26.12.2013 firstly on the ground that it was the District Magistrate who was directed by the High Court to make a fresh inquiry himself. 7. Instead of conducting an inquiry himself the District Magistrate relegated the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Counsel for petitioner says that the District Magistrate could not have done so without the permission of the High Court. 8. 7. Instead of conducting an inquiry himself the District Magistrate relegated the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Counsel for petitioner says that the District Magistrate could not have done so without the permission of the High Court. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner also challenges the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on merits. Petitioner says that there were five charges against him. He alleges that charges were vague and fabricated and yet all of them could not be proved. He has been able to demonstrate that after his explanation the charges could not be proved at all and only one charge was partially proved. 9. The petitioner forcefully argues that when 3 out of the 5 charges could not be proved against the petitioner, his licence should not have been cancelled. The appeal filed against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been summarily rejected and the point raised by the petitioner that District Magistrate ought to have decided the matter himself was not considered by the Commissioner also. The petitioner has also argued that the writ petition filed by the complainants ought not to have been entertained by this Court because the complainants do not have the right to approach the High Court for redressal of their grievance directly. No complaint has been made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Supply Officer or to any other district authority by the complainants. He has argued that when the Court directed the District Magistrate to investigate the matter, he took it as if he was directed to cancel the licence . Instead of making a fair inquiry and giving a copy of inquiry report to the petitioner, the District Magistrate went ahead and cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner. He further says that the petitioner has been a victim of arbitrariness right from the beginning. However, he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was rejected without considering the fact that the District Magistrate had not given him the copy of inquiry report, hence the order of the Commissioner was bad. 10. So far as the order dated 26.12.2013, vide Annexure No.7 is concerned the petitioner in paragraph-19 of the writ petition had strongly averred that one Giri Raj Kumar Dwivedi, who is a political person and is biased against him, has made the complaint. 10. So far as the order dated 26.12.2013, vide Annexure No.7 is concerned the petitioner in paragraph-19 of the writ petition had strongly averred that one Giri Raj Kumar Dwivedi, who is a political person and is biased against him, has made the complaint. In fact it is on his complaint that the proceedings have been initiated although he is neither a resident of the same village nor he is a card holder. He lives in city of Unnao but has been able to make successive complaints against the petitioner. The counter affidavit is conspicuously silent on the issue of Giri Raj Kumar Dwivedi. Only this much has been said that along with Giri Raj Kumar Dwivedi, other persons have also made complaints. Counter affidavit is also silent on the veracity of those complaints and no names of those complainants have been mentioned therein. Let us examine the charges against the petitioner as mentioned in the order dated 26.12.2013. 11. So far as first charge is concerned it was made by S/Sri Fatte, Santosh Kumar, Dhanna Lal, Raju, Ganga Prasad, Piyare, Vishnu Kumar, Bablu, Vijai Bahadur, Dayaram, Bhoj Kumar, Vinay Kumar, Ram Prasad, Kallu and Srimati etc. It was alleged that the food grains have not been given to them in adequate quantity which was prescribed. Additional distribution has also not been made. In reply petitioner had been able to show that the charges are not correct. All the complainants mentioned above filed their reply through notary affidavit stating therein that the charges are not correct and they do not have any grievance against the petitioner. On this charge the explanation of the petitioner was found to be correct by the Sub Divisional Officer. 12. Second charge mentions with regard to Antyoday Card Holders that they were given 14 Kg.wheat, 33.5 kg. rice and 5 kg. of sugar. It has been recorded that the petitioner has not given any reply to the charges, hence the same have been proved. Sri Amitabh Shukla has argued that there was a mistake in preparing the reply. However, it was incumbent upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate to have proved the charge by recording the statement of those persons whose cards were being indicated as evidence. No reply to the charge itself be a proof of no guilt of the petitioner. Sri Amitabh Shukla has argued that there was a mistake in preparing the reply. However, it was incumbent upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate to have proved the charge by recording the statement of those persons whose cards were being indicated as evidence. No reply to the charge itself be a proof of no guilt of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has neither conducted any inquiry nor has given any names of the card holders or the statement that any forge entry has been made by the petitioner. Likewise the 3rd charge is that Nanha, Puttan, Ganesh Shanker, Kripa Shanker Dwivedi, Satnu Kahar, Ram Shanker, Ram Khelawan, Pramod Kumar, Raj Kishore, Aditya Kumar, Chandra Pal, Krishna Kumar, Ram Pal, Shyam Lal, Chandan Lal, Ram Kishun, Shailendra and Smt.Sarju Dei etc. have given statement that they are BPL card holders and exact quantity of food grains are not supplied to them. Later on these persons have given affidavits that they do not have any complaint against the petitioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate has mentioned that the explanation of the petitioner was found sufficient. 13. Fourth complaint was made by Sri Giri Raj Kumar, whose name has been mentioned above and it has been found that he is the resident of some other village and he is not a card holder. In this case also the Sub Divisional Magistrate has exonerated the petitioner and his explanation has been partially accepted by him. So far 5th charge is concerned, 9 bags of wheat were found extra and 36 bags of rice were found less and 2 bags of sugar were also found in excess of the stock. 14. Petitioner has given his explanation that when the stock was checked, he was not present in the fair price shop. The stock checking was done in presence of his cousin brother Sewalal. 15. After considering the averments made in the petition, arguments of the counsel and counter affidavit of learned Standing Counsel, the Court comes to the conclusion that almost all the charges, which were levelled against the petitioner, could not be sustained or proved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hasanganj, Unnao, therefore, the order dated 26.12.2013, Annexure-7, cannot be sustained. 15. After considering the averments made in the petition, arguments of the counsel and counter affidavit of learned Standing Counsel, the Court comes to the conclusion that almost all the charges, which were levelled against the petitioner, could not be sustained or proved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hasanganj, Unnao, therefore, the order dated 26.12.2013, Annexure-7, cannot be sustained. The order dated 22.8.2014, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Prasashan), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Annexure-9 is almost the repetition of the case set out by the Sub Divisional Officer, therefore, both the orders cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26.12.2013, passed by the Upziladhikari, Hasanganj, District Unnao, Annexure-7 and the appellate order dated 22.8.2014, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Prasashan), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, Annexure-9, are hereby set aside. 17. Consequences to follow.