Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3117 (ALL)

RAMA PUNDHIR v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-09-12

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri A.P. Singh Raghav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri M.K. Yadav holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon sabha. 2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.8.2016 passed by Joint Commissioner (Food), Meerut Division, Meerut as well as order dated 2.5.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja, District Buland Shahar. 3. vide order dated 2.5.2016 the petitioner’s agreement to run fair price shop was cancelled by respondent No. 3 whereas by the subsequent order dated 26.8.2016 the Joint Commissioner (Food) has partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of cancellation of agreement to run fair price shop dated 2.5.2016 and maintaining the suspension order and remitting the matter before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned for fresh decision. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the order of cancellation itself has been set aside, the suspension order, which had merged in the cancellation order could not be revived. 5. There appears to be substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once after suspension of the agreement, the agreement has been cancelled and thereafter the order of cancellation is set aside then suspension order which has merged in the order of cancellation stood set aside. I am of the opinion that the appellate authority has erred in reviving the suspension order after setting aside the order of cancellation, which has already merged in the cancellation order. 6. Further more, the power of suspension under the relevant statute has been conferred upon the competent authority and the word “Competent Authority” has been defined in Chapter 2(i) of U.P. Schedule Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, which reads as under : “Competent Authority” means Collector and includes Additional District Magistrate, District Supply Officer, Deputy Town and Rationing Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate or Area Rationing Officer;” 7. From the perusal of the aforesaid definition it is apparent that the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Officer, District Supply Officer happen to be the competent authority and Joint Commissioner (Food) is not a competent authority either to suspend or to cancel the agreement of fair price shop. On the contrary he happens to be the appellate authority. From the perusal of the aforesaid definition it is apparent that the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Officer, District Supply Officer happen to be the competent authority and Joint Commissioner (Food) is not a competent authority either to suspend or to cancel the agreement of fair price shop. On the contrary he happens to be the appellate authority. Therefore also, in my opinion the order impugned passed by Joint Commissioner, Food in reviving the suspension order is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. The matter may be examined from another angle too. The Government orders dated 29.7.2004 as well as 26.11.2014 provide that inquiry for cancellation of the agreement has to be completed within a period of four weeks. Here, initially the order of suspension was passed on 11.4.2016 and thereafter the agreement to run fair price shop was cancelled on 2.5.2016 which has continued till date. A Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2007 (66) ALR 360, has observed that the suspension order cannot be allowed to continue beyond the period of four weeks, Therefore also, continuance of suspension order during the pendency of further Inquiry is unsustainable. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.8.2016 is quashed to the extent by which, the appellate authority while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 2.5.2016, has revived the suspension order. However remaining part of the order dated 26.8.2016 shall remain intact and necessary consequences of allowing the appeal will follow. Further proceeding pursuant to impugned order dated 26.8.2016 be concluded by the Sub Divisional Officer expeditiously but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court.