Court No.1. Writ Petition No.6909(M/B) of 2010 Awadhesh Singh. Vs. State of U.P. & others. Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Notices on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by the
learned Chief Standing Counsel.
With the consent of the parties’ counsel, this petition is being
disposed of finally.
Sri Raghavendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
assailing the impugned order of suspension of the fair price shop of the
petitioner, submits that it is a clear case of political interference in the
matter. The impugned order has been passed on extraneous
consideration, under the dictates of the Principal Secretary to the Chief
Minister, U.P, as is evident by the letter dated 03.05.2010 addressed by
the Enquiry Committee to the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supply,
Lucknow. He relying upon the case, reported in A.I.R, 1970 SC 1896,
Purtaspur Co. Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner, Bihar, submits that no
complaint has been enquired into by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who is the
authority competent to take any such decision, but merely on the
directives issued by superior authority the actions have been taken.
We, also take notice of the plea that the competent authority, who
can pass the order and take action against a dealer of fair price shop is
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the District Supply Officer, as the case
may be. Normally, if a complaint is made against any fair price shop
dealer, such an officer shall look into the matter, and in case, he prima-
facie finds that the dealer has committed breach in the performance of his
functions, then he can suspend the agreement and accordingly proceed
with the matter. But in the instant case, we, find that it was because of the
directive issued by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, who
directed the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, Lucknow to take
action on the complaints said to have been established, that the order of
suspension of the fair price shop of the petitioner has been passed,
because of lodging the first information report against him under Section
3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
The action taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate solely on the
direction of the superior authority, that too the Principal Secretary to the
Chief Minister, firstly does not leave any discretion to the competent
authority to take an independent view on the complaints, if any, and
secondly, the complaints/allegations of non supply of essential
commodities as per the norms to certain card-holders could not have
been enquired into by the superior authority, so as to enable him to issue
directions for taking suitable actions.
The impugned order having been issued by the S.D.M, without
application of his own mind, merely because of the directive issued by the
Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and the Commissioner, Food &
Civil Supplies, thus can not be sustained.
We, under the circumstances, quash the orders dated 2.7.2010,
15.7.2010 and 22.7.2010 passed by the respondents with liberty to the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make necessary enquiry against the
complaints so made, and in case he finds the allegations made in the
complaints prima-facie correct, he can pass fresh orders in accordance
with law.
The writ petition stands allowed.
05.08.2010
Prajapati/-