Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1514 (JHR)

Hamid Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-09

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, who was a PDS licensee bearing no.10/1988 for running a fair price shop at village Khukhra, P.S. Burmu, P.O. Barawdi, District Ranchi on falling seriously ill and after undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital, Irba for several months, made an application as per Annexure-2 on 6th August, 2009 before the respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi for being relieved of the responsibility of the fair price shop for a period of two months on account of his ill health. The application at Annexure-2 also refers to his treatment being undertaken for his heart ailment at Apollo Hospital at Irba due to which he wanted himself to be relieved of the responsibility of running the fair price shop for few months. However, according to him, the respondents have acted upon an alleged resignation letter said to have been submitted by him on 17th August, 2009 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) and relieved him from the PDS shop in question which has been tagged with the PDS shop being run by another licensee Chunnu Lal Mahto bearing no.76/1984 vide impugned order (Annexure-3) bearing memo no.340 dated 20th August, 2009 issued by the respondent no.2. Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court alleging that acceptance of alleged letter-2of resignation by the respondent no.2 should be declared nullity in the eye of law as the same appears to be a forged document. The respondents have also not verified the matter before proceeding to act on the purported resignation letter. It is submitted that during course of the verification conducted by respondent no.3, petitioner had been made to sign on a blank paper which has been converted as a resignation letter. Petitioner would not have purchased the food grains, if he was not interested in running the PDS shop because of his ill health. 3. Counsel for the respondents-State has filed a counter affidavit and supported the impugned order. He reiterates the stand of the respondents as contained in the impugned order at Annexure-3. It is submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi, after due recommendation of the respondent no.3 -Block Supply Officer, Burmu, has rightly accepted the resignation of the petitioner on account of his recurring ill health and the treatment being undertaken for his heart ailment at Apollo Hospital which could have affected the running of the fair price shop itself. It is submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi, after due recommendation of the respondent no.3 -Block Supply Officer, Burmu, has rightly accepted the resignation of the petitioner on account of his recurring ill health and the treatment being undertaken for his heart ailment at Apollo Hospital which could have affected the running of the fair price shop itself. The fair price shop was tagged with another PDS licensee Chunnu Lal Mahto. The allegation of forgery in the resignation application has been categorically denied at paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit. 4. Petitioner in his rejoinder has contested the statement made in the counter affidavit and also questioned the age reflected in Annexure-A as 72 years on the basis of a voter identity card in his name showing 62 years of age. He has also reiterated the statement made about lifting of food grains from Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation through cheques and challans after depositing a sum of Rs.60,385/-between 5th May, 2009 to 9th July, 2009 as his intent and willingness to run the PDS shop in question. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and relevant materials on record. 6. Contents of the pleadings on record noted herein above convey that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, was suffering from heart ailment and also undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospital, Irba for sufficient length of time which propelled him to make the request as per his own statements for suspension of his licence for a period of few months vide his application at Annexure-2. 7. In the aforesaid undisputed state of facts whether the letter of resignation relied upon by the respondents (Annexure-A) to relieve him of the PDS licence is a forged document or not, is such a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings under writ jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner has also indicated that verification was done pursuant to his request by the respondent no.3. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would not be proper to enter into the merits of the allegation of the petitioner based on the grounds of fraud which can be adequately raised in a competent court of law where issues of fact can be thrashed out on the basis of oral and documentary evidences. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would not be proper to enter into the merits of the allegation of the petitioner based on the grounds of fraud which can be adequately raised in a competent court of law where issues of fact can be thrashed out on the basis of oral and documentary evidences. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere the matter in writ jurisdiction leaving it to the petitioner to avail of any other remedy in accordance with law. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed liberty to avail of the remedy of appeal as available under Section 28 of Jharkhand Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. However, the appeal may be barred by limitation. Therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically. 10. While parting, it is being observed that in case, the petitioner seeks to prefer an appeal, the time taken in prosecution of the instant writ petition be taken into account for consideration of the question of delay sympathetically by the appellate authority. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.