Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2491 (ALL)

UDAIVEER SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-07-19

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Manu Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Through this writ petition prayer has been made to issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.6.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh Division, Aligarh in Appeal No. 2015180000875 (Udaiveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 8.12.2014 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Aligarh Etah. Vide order dated 8.12.2014 the Sub Divisional Officer has suspended the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop whereas by the subsequent order dated 10.6.2016 appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh Division, Aligarh. While assailing the aforesaid orders learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of suspension is nothing except harassment of the petitioner for the reasons that on the same kind of complaint earlier the petitioner's agreement to run fair price shop was suspended on 2.11.2012. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner herein had filed Appeal No. 149/C-201318000048 (Udaiveer Singh vs. State) which was allowed on 22.8.2014. After allowing the appeal it is the same complainant, who had made earlier complaint, had made a similar complaint on that the petitioner's agreement was suspended on 8.12.2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner herein has filed Appeal No. 2015180000875 (Udaiveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) and at this time the appeal has been dismissed by observing that the order impugned is interlocutory in nature and the petitioner will have every opportunity to rebut the charges. On being confronted as to whether after the order dated 22.8.2014 and after filing of the appeal there is any interim order staying the suspension order or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no interim order during the pendency of the appeal. On being further confronted as to whether reply to the show cause notice pursuant to impugned suspension order dated 8.12.2014 has been filed or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reply has already been filed but no decision has yet been taken. On being further confronted as to whether reply to the show cause notice pursuant to impugned suspension order dated 8.12.2014 has been filed or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reply has already been filed but no decision has yet been taken. So far as the dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 10.6.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh is concerned, the said order is patently illegal and arbitrary and suffers from non consideration of the relevant provisions contained under the U.P. Schedule Commodities Distribution order, 2004 (In short Distribution Order) as according to Order 28(3), against the order of suspension appeal lies before the appellate authority and once the appeal is filed it is statutory duty imposed upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merit and not to dismiss the appeal treating it to be against an interlocutory order but in view of the fact that the suspension is being continuing for the last two years and the petitioner has already filed his reply even if there is some discrepancy in the suspension order and appellate order, I am not inclined to interfere with the same and the writ petition is disposed of with direction to competent authority to conclude final inquiry expeditiously but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court.