Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2686 (ALL)

RAM UJAGIR v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-08-03

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri A.K. Singh along with Sri M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Madhur Prakash along with Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the gaon sabha and Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the caveator. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.6.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Itwa, District Siddharthanagar by which the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be decided on the existing facts. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent of Village Dokam Amaya, Block Bhanwarpu, Tehsil Itwa, District Siddharthanagar in the year 1995. Since then, he had been performing his duty as fair price shop agent without there being any interruption. However, it is on 4.5.2016, the petitioner's agreement to run fair price shop was suspended and the petitioner was granted 15 days' time to file explanation to the charges levelled against him. The petitioner, herein, has filed his reply/explanation to the charges levelled against him. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after filing of the reply/explanation given by the petitioner, has deputed the Regional Food Officer for examination of the reply taking note of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Regional Food Officer has submitted his report before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer on that basis has passed the impugned order of cancellation. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is patently illegal. The Regional Food Officer has submitted his report before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer on that basis has passed the impugned order of cancellation. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is patently illegal. In his submissions, the Sub-Divisional Officer, after receipt of the explanation, has got it examined through Regional Food Officer and without recording his own satisfaction and without discussing the charges, has passed the impugned order, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law On being confronted as to whether the Sub-Divisional Officer has discussed himself independently each and every charge separately and considered the explanation of the petitioner with respect to the charge levelled against the petitioner and applied his own mind or not, learned counsel for the opposite parties could not show from the impugned order that the Sub-Divisional Officer has discussed each and every charge separately, considered the explanation of the petitioner with respect to particular charge and found the charges proved. It is settled that once the authority is empowered to exercise quasi-judicial power then that power has to be exercised in judicial way by passing the reasoned speaking order after considering the material available on record independently and he cannot depend his decision upon the assessment made by any other authority. The report/assessment of the other authority may have persuasive value but so far as passing of the order on merit is concerned that cannot be made sole basis unless the authority which is empowered under the statute has applied his own mind. Here in this case, the authority concerned has not at all applied his own mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner while considering the explanation submitted by him and the other materials available on record, therefore there is inherent lacking in the decision making process. Hence, the order of cancellation of agreement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore the impugned order dated 18.6.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Itwa, District Siddharthanagar cancelling the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Hence, the order of cancellation of agreement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore the impugned order dated 18.6.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Itwa, District Siddharthanagar cancelling the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The matter is remitted back before the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass a fresh order after discussing each and every charge separately in consonance with the reply/explanation given by the petitioner by recording his own finding upon each and every charge levelled against the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. It has also been brought to my notice that after suspension, the shop in question was attached to another shop. In view of the fact that the writ petition has been allowed and the order of cancellation of agreement has been set aside, the attachment shall be lifted and the agreement of the petitioner shall be restored by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned expeditiously but not later than ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court.