Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1848 (ALL)

Imran Khan v. State of U. P.

2019-07-31

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was appointed as a salesman by the District Cooperative Development Federation Limited, Jhansi, on 15.09.2009 to run a fair price shop named as Itwariganj fair price shop. When on 14.03.2016 certain complaints were made, action was taken on 28.03.2016 and the society’s license to run the fair price shop was suspended and the shop was attached to the fair price shop of one Babu Khan. On 28.03.2016 itself a First Information Report was also lodged. 2. Thereafter investigation commenced and on 06.02.2017 in the criminal proceedings a final report was filed. In the mean time, the petitioner as a salesman filed an appeal against the order dated 28.03.2016 and the appeal was allowed on 23.11.2016 and the matter was remitted to the District Supply Officer. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.05.2017 with a direction that the petitioner had to submit his reply to the notice dated 21.09.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his reply on 03.05.2017. The order, thereafter, which was passed on 13.09.2017, however, found that the allegations against the shop were misfounded but it was stated in the order that the license would be restored only if the Cooperative Society changed its salesman. Further condition which was imposed was that the security which was deposited by the society would be forfeited. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when by the order dated 13.09.2017 the District Supply Officer had restored the shop then he could not have imposed the two conditions namely, that the society had to change its salesman and also that the shop would be restored only if the security was forfeited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Supply Officer exceeded his jurisdiction when he passed the order, as even though the petitioner was replying on behalf of the society it was not the petitioner who was given the show cause notice with regard to the malfunctioning of the shop. 4. Learned counsel relying on Clause 12 (8) of the Government Order dated 09.01.1981 states that such agents which were Cooperative Societies, if were found to be on the wrong then their licenses could be cancelled by the Assistant Registrar of societies after giving them a notice. 4. Learned counsel relying on Clause 12 (8) of the Government Order dated 09.01.1981 states that such agents which were Cooperative Societies, if were found to be on the wrong then their licenses could be cancelled by the Assistant Registrar of societies after giving them a notice. In the instant case the petitioner who was a salesman had been asked to be removed by the District Supply Officer and thereafter the license of the agent (the cooperative society) has been restored. Under which provision the District Supply Officer had asked the agent to be removed from being a sales person is not clear. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, in reply, further submitted that the petitioner, in fact, was running the shop and, therefore, he himself had to suffer as a salesman. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the society, Sri Lalit Kumar Tripathi and the Learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that when the order was passed by the District Supply Officer that the shop was being restored then the condition that the petitioner had to be removed from being a salesman and that the security had to be forfeited was not warranted. This order also could not have been passed as no fault was found with the working of the society and no charges as were levelled against the society were proved. However, since the society is not before me, I only quash the portion of the order dated 13.09.2017 by which it has been stated that the license would be restored if the petitioner is removed as a salesman. The petitioner would therefore continue to be the salesman. 7. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds to the extent indicated above. 8. The writ petition is allowed.