Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2795 (ALL)

ARJUN v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-12-01

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—The instant writ petition challenges the order of cancellation dated 14.8.2017. Initially the writ petition was entertained as there was a confusion as to whether the District Supply Officer could have passed the impugned order. Today the learned Standing Counsel has produced the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 and has relied on Clause -12 which is being been reproduced herein under: ^^ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd xzkeh.k {ks= dh nqdkuksa dk fujh{k.k rFkk vfu;ferrk ik;s tkus ij nqdkunkjksa ds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSA** 2. It shows that District Supply Officer had the authority to inspect and take disciplinary action against all fair price shops in the villages. 3. The learned Standing Counsel further placed reliance on a Government Order dated 30.9.2004 which is also being reproduced herein under: ^^[kk| rFkk jln vuqHkkx&5 y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 flrEcj] 2004 fo"k; %& xzkeh.k rFkk 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds p;u] fuyEcu@fujL=hdj.k ,oa lEc)hdj.k ds lEcU/k esa izfØ;k dk fu/kkZj.kA egksn;] 1- mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&2714@29&6&2002&162 lkŒ@2001] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002] la[;k&2715@29&6&2002&162lkŒ@2001] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002] la[;k 3577@ 29&6&03&8 ¼113½@03] fnukad 22&10&2003 ,oa l[;k&2260@29&6&2004&300 lkŒ@2003] fnukad] 29 tqykbZ] 2004 rFkk le; ij tkjh vU; 'kklukns'kksa dh d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djasA 2- fofHkUu ftyksa }kjk 'kklu ls xzkeh.k {ks= ,oa 'kgjh {ks= esa mfpr nj nqdkuksa ds n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ ds vf/kdkj dh fLFkfr Li"V djuss ds lEcU/k esa ekxZn'kZu dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA mDr ds izfjizs{; esa eq>ls ;g dgus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd ftykf/kdkjh rFkk ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks lEiw.kZ ftys ds ¼ftlesa uxjh; ,oa xzkeh.k nksuksa {ks= lfEefyr gksaxs½ yf{kr tu forj.k iz.kkyh ds lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ djus dk vfèkdkj gksxkA mi ftykf/kdkjh dks vius rglhy esa fLFkr lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ djus dk vfèkdkj ;Fkkor~ jgsxkA 3- mijksDr 'kklukns'k mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;sA** 4. It shows a further authority had been vested in the Sub-divisional Officer to take action against the fair price shop dealers. It shows a further authority had been vested in the Sub-divisional Officer to take action against the fair price shop dealers. Thereafter, the learned Standing Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 13.4.2017 which is being reproduced herein under: ^^fo"k; %& xzkeh.k ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds p;u] fuyEcu@ fujLrhdj.k ,oa lEc)hdj.k ds lEcU/k esa izfØ;k dk fu/kkZj.kA egksn;] 1- mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&3126@29&6&2004&300lkŒ@03Vhlh] fnukad 30-09-2004 dk d`i;k lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlesa lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh dh lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k vkSj muds fo:) n.MkRed ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k½ dk;Zokgh dk vfèkdkj ftykf/kdkjh@ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks Hkh iznku fd;k x;k gSA fofHkUu lzksrksa ls 'kklu ds laKku esa ;g ckr yk;h tk jgh gS fd ,d gh fcUnq ij dk;Zokgh ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh@mi ftykf/kdkjh vFkok ftykf/kdkjh dks dk;Zokgh dk vf/kdkj iznku dj fn;k x;k gS] tcfd lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds lqpk: lapkyu dk nkf;Ro lEcfU/kr ftykf/kdkfj;ksa dks lkSaik x;k gSA 2- vr% mDr 'kklukns'k esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq, bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd mi ftykfèkdkjh vius rglhy esa fLFkfr lHkh nqdkuksa dk fujh{k.k rks dj ldrs gSa] fdUrq muds fo:) n.MkRed ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k½ ,oa cgky dh dk;Zokgh ftyk iwfrZ vfèkdkjh ds ek/;e ls i=koyh ij ftykf/kdkjh dh fyf[kr vuqefr izkIr djus ds mijkUr gh djsaxsA 3- mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 30&09&2004 dks bl lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;A** 5. This Government Order shows that the Sub-divisional Officer could, though inspect the shop, pass the orders of cancellation/suspension only after getting approval from the District Magistrate. 6. It has been provided in this Government Order that the records of the case would go to the District Magistrate through the District Supply Officer. A joint reading of the three Government Orders dated 17.8.2002, 30.9.2004 and 13.4.2017 makes it clear that the District Supply Officer has, in a given district, powers to take action against the fair price shop dealers. Additionally, the Sub-divisional Officer has also been given powers under the Government Order dated 30.9.2004 but the same has been curtailed by the Government Order dated 13.4.2017 and the Sub-divisional Officer, though can take action, can do so only after the approval of the District Magistrate. 7. Under such circumstances, the impugned order which has been passed by the District Supply Officer could have very well been passed by him. 7. Under such circumstances, the impugned order which has been passed by the District Supply Officer could have very well been passed by him. It was well within the jurisdiction of the District Supply Officer to pass the orders. 8. The learned Standing Counsel next submitted that as the order passed by the District Supply Officer was appealable, this Court may not interfere. I therefore, direct that the petitioner may file an appeal which shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without going to the question of limitation. 9. The writ petition is disposed of.