{"id":211366,"date":"2010-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-20T02:05:52","modified_gmt":"2019-02-19T20:35:52","slug":"gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; &#8230; on 9 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; &#8230; on 9 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 28\n\nCase :- WRIT - C No. - 27486 of 2008\nPetitioner :- Gyan Bahadur Singh\nRespondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Food &amp; Civil Supply &amp; Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- Rajesh Kumar,A.C. Tiwari,Ajay K Banerjee,Jitendra\nPrasad,K.K.Chaurasiya\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C.\n\nHon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>       Heard Sri A.K. Banerjee learned counsel for the petitioner and learned<br \/>\nStanding Counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and<br \/>\nsupplementary rejoinder affidavit are available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner (Food) Vindhyachal Mandal, District Mirzapur (respondent<br \/>\nno. 2) whereby his Appeal No. 299\/2008 filed under Clause 28 (3) of the U.P.<br \/>\nEssential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 has been rejected as also the<br \/>\norder dated 22.2.2008 passed by the District Supply Officer, Mirzapur (respondent<br \/>\nno. 3) whereby the fair price shop licence of the petitioner situated at village Gaura,<br \/>\nPolice Station, Jigna, District Mirzapur has been cancelled upon irregularities<br \/>\nhaving been found in an inspection made at the shop on 6.6.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the shop was<br \/>\nsuspended and cancelled where against he had filed writ petition which was<br \/>\nallowed and the matter was remitted back to the authority to give due opportunity<br \/>\nto the petitioner before passing any order against him. He submits that by the<br \/>\nimpugned orders the respondents have not considered the sale register of the<br \/>\npetitioner and the allegations made against him are due to political pressure of a<br \/>\nlocal MLA and as such the same requires to be set aside. He has also referred to<br \/>\nthe findings recorded by the District Supply Officer in the impugned order dated<br \/>\n22.2.2008 to state that the explanation of the petitioner was not properly<br \/>\nconsidered and there was no mention of his sale register in the decision taken by<br \/>\nthe authorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and<br \/>\nperused the record the District Supply Officer in the order dated 2.2.2008 has<br \/>\nconsidered the explanation of the petitioner on each and every allegation made<br \/>\nagainst him separately and has found that he did not produce the sale register and<br \/>\nin his evidence he has clearly stated that he has not entered the stock sale made<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>by him in the sale register. The authority has also recorded that during the<br \/>\ninspection made at the shop there was irregularity in the amount of kerosene oil<br \/>\nfound at his shop and although he has filed affidavit of several card holders in his<br \/>\nfavour the same has been considered as Paishbandi on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\nparticularly because in the inspection the irregularities were found to which he has<br \/>\nnot given any evidence to disprove nor his reply was satisfactory. The District<br \/>\nSupply Officer has recorded a finding of fact regarding non maintenance, non<br \/>\nproduction of the sale register and the other irregularities committed by the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed and the appellate court<br \/>\nhas gone into each and every explanation given by the petitioner in detail against<br \/>\nthe finding recorded by District Supply Officer and has found that the irregularities<br \/>\nwere established and the petitioner has not produced the sale register even before<br \/>\nthe appellate authority. The finding recorded by the appellate authority is quoted<br \/>\nhere under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                   &#8220;eSusa mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf\/koDrkx.k }kjk izLrqr rdksZ dks lquk rFkk<br \/>\n          i=koyh ij miyC\/k vfHkys[kksa dk HkyhHkkWfr vuq&#8217;khyu ,oa ijh{k.k fd;k A i=koyh<br \/>\n          ds voyksdu ls Li&#8221;V gS fd Vhe }kjk vihykFkhZ dh nqdku dh tkWp ds le;<br \/>\n          LVkd jftLVj izLrqr fd;k x;k A vihykFkhZ }kjk fdlh Hkh vko&#8217;;d oLrq dk<br \/>\n          forj.k jftLVj ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k rFkk ;g crk;k x;k fd ek= jk&#8217;ku dkMZ<br \/>\n          ij gh forj.k vafdr fd;k tkrk gS A ekg ekpZ vizSy rFkk ebZ 07 esa izR;sd ekg<br \/>\n          esa 1870 yh0 feVVh dk rsy mBku djus ds mijkUr mls fu;fer :i ls vken o<br \/>\n          LVkd iath esa \/kVk;k ugha x;k gS A bl izdkj ekSds ij nqdku esa 350 yh0 feVVh<br \/>\n          dks rsy ?kVkus ds ckn LVkd esa 5260 yh0 feVVh dks rsy gksuk pkfg, Fkk tks<br \/>\n          okLrfod LVkd ls de ik;k x;k A fujh{k.k ds le; feVVh ds rsy dk forj.k<br \/>\n          jftLVj vR;f\/kd u djus rFkk ekaxs tkus ij izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k A vihykFkhZ }<br \/>\n          kjk v\/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr Li&#8221;Vhdj.k ls lkFk xzke iz\/kku o dfri;<br \/>\n          vUR;ksn;@ch0ih0,y0 dkMZ\/kkjdks dk la;qDr c;ku o &#8216;kiFk i= ek-<br \/>\n          cpko@is&#8217;kcUnh ds :i es izLrqr fd;s x;s gS A vihykFkhZ }kjk ekg twu 07 ds<br \/>\n          fy, 05 dq0 phuh dk mBku dj fnukad 1-06-07 ls forj.k fd;k tkuk n&#8217;kkZ;k<br \/>\n          x;k gS tcfd &#8216;kklukns&#8217;k das vuqlkj ekg dh 05 rkjh[k ls vken gq, LVkd dk<br \/>\n          lR;kiu ds mijkUr forj.k djuk pkfg, Fkk A ch0ih0,y0 o vUr;ksn; ;kstuk dk<br \/>\n          xsgW forj.k ds i&#8217;pkt LVkd esa 16-20 dq0 miyC\/k gksuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq 21 cksjh<br \/>\n          izR;sd esa 50 fdxzk0 gh ik;k x;k tks 11 cksjh izR;sd esa 50 fdxzk0 de Fkk A blh<br \/>\n          izdkj ch0ih0,y0 o vUR;ksn; ;kstuk dk pkoy forj.k ds i&#8217;pkr LVkd esa 40-50<br \/>\n          dq0 gksuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq 43 cksjh izR;sd esa 50 fdxzk0 de ik;k x;k A &#8216;kklukns&#8217;k<br \/>\n          ds vuqlkj mfpr nj fodzsrk dks vuqc?ka dh &#8216;krksZ ds vuqlkj fcdzh jftLVj ,oa<br \/>\n          jk&#8217;ku dkMksZ esa izfof&#8221;V vafdr djds gh vko&#8217;;d oLrqvksa dk forj.k djuk pkfg,<br \/>\n          vkSj izfrfnu forj.k ds i&#8217;pkr vfHkys[kksa esa izfof&#8221;V vafdr djuk pkfg, ijUrq<br \/>\n          vihykFkhZ }kjk ,slk ugh fd;k x;k A bl izdkj m0iz0 vuqlfw pr oLrq forj.k<br \/>\n          vkns&#8217;k 2004 dk mYya\/ku fd;k x;k A mijksDr vfu;ferrkvksa ds lEca\/k esa<br \/>\n          vihykFkhZ ds fo:} vko&#8217;;d oLrq vf\/kfu;e 1955 dh \/kkjk 3@7 ds varxZr<br \/>\n          fnukad 6-06-07 dks gh Fkkuk ftxuk esa izkFkfedh Hkh ntZ djkbZ xbZ tks l{ke<br \/>\n          U;k;ky; esa fopkjk\/khu gS A Li&#8221;V gS fd vihykFkhZ dk mijksDr d`R; m0iz0<br \/>\n          vuqlwfpr oLrq forj.k vkns&#8217;k 2004 esa fufgr vuqc\/ka dh &#8216;krksZ dk Li&#8221;V mYya\/ku gS<br \/>\n          A rnuqlkj v\/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns&#8217;k fof\/kiw.kZ gS vkSj rF;ksa ds vk\/kkj ij<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko&#8217;;drk ugh gS vr% vihy fujLr<br \/>\n         fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A<br \/>\n                 mijksDrkuqlkj vihy fujLr dh tkrh gS A v\/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k<br \/>\n         okil Hkstk tk;s rFkk bl U;k;ky; dh i=koyh nkf[ky nQrj gks A&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      From the aforesaid finding recorded by the appellate authority it appears<br \/>\nthat the irregularities committed by the petitioner were clearly proved beyond doubt<br \/>\nsince he did not produce the sale register with respect to the sales of essential<br \/>\ncommodities made by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Even in this writ petition the aforesaid sale register has not been annexed so<br \/>\nas to find any substance in the submission of the petitioner that his sale register<br \/>\nwas produced but it was not considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In so far as the allegation that the entire exercise has been done due to<br \/>\npolitical interference is concerned it will be seen that the local MLA appears to<br \/>\nhave recommended action on the complaint made by Sri Udai Bahadur Singh<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner. Such recommendation made by the local MLA cannot be<br \/>\nsaid to be one where the fair price shop has been cancelled due to political<br \/>\npressure. The local MLA being a representative of the people can always ask the<br \/>\nadministrative authorities to look into any complaint received from the citizens<br \/>\nagainst fair price shop owner. Mere asking the authorities to look into the matter<br \/>\ncannot be brought into the ambit of political pressure exercised by the local MLA.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It will be seen from the record that an F.I.R. had been lodged and a<br \/>\nchargesheet has been filed against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this<br \/>\ncourt in the case of Gun Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others reported in<br \/>\n2009 (9) ADJ 803 and states that when oral allegations are made on political rivalry<br \/>\nand stock register has not been signed by the authority and which was not a<br \/>\ncharge in the show cause notice the cancellation would be un-justified.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In so far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, in the present case there<br \/>\nwas a written complaint and not an oral complaint. The local MLA being<br \/>\nrepresentative of the people had recommended the complaint to the authority for<br \/>\nnecessary action which cannot be said to be a reason for cancellation of the fair<br \/>\nprice shop of the petitioner due to local political rivalry more particularly because<br \/>\nthe impugned orders contained the detailed description of the irregularities<br \/>\ncommitted, the details of the show cause notice the reply of the petitioner and his<br \/>\nevidence wherein the irregularities have been found.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>        In so far as the stock register and sale register is concerned the petitioner<br \/>\nadmittedly did not produce it either at the time of inspection of before the District<br \/>\nSupply Officer or before the appellate authority and it has not even been produced<br \/>\nbefore the writ court. As such no benefit can be given to the petitioner on the basis<br \/>\nof the judgement in Gun Pratap Singh (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>       He has also relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Buddhi Sagar<br \/>\nYadav Vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2009 (8) ADJ 765 to state that even<br \/>\nif the SDM is not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the fair price shop<br \/>\nowner the Commissioner in appeal having very wide powers could examine the<br \/>\nfactual issues and he was under an obligation to consider all the factual pleas<br \/>\nraised by the fair price shop owner. In the case of Buddhi Sagar Yadav the court<br \/>\nfound that the Commissioner has failed to exercise his jurisdiction while confirming<br \/>\nthe order of SDM.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In the present case the circumstances are not such as were in Buddhi Sagar<br \/>\nYadav&#8217;s case. The finding of the Commissioner as quoted above indicates that the<br \/>\nCommissioner has considered the allegations against the petitioner and<br \/>\nexplanation given by him. Hence the petitioner cannot be granted any benefit on<br \/>\nthe basis of the aforesaid decision since the circumstances are different.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case<br \/>\nof Abu Baker Vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (6) ADJ 339 to submit<br \/>\nthat when an order is passed cancelling the fair price shop agreement without<br \/>\naffording any opportunity and in contravention of the principles of natural justice it<br \/>\nrequires to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Admittedly in the present case the earlier orders passed against the<br \/>\npetitioner had been set aside and remitted back by this court in the earlier writ<br \/>\npetition for the aforesaid reason but now by the impugned orders the petitioner has<br \/>\nbeen given full opportunity of explaining on each and every factual controversy<br \/>\nraised by him and it has been considered and decided by the impugned orders.<br \/>\nConsequently it cannot be said that the impugned orders are in contravention of<br \/>\nthe principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The findings recorded in the impugned orders are findings of fact on the<br \/>\nbasis of material available on record. There is no such material available in this writ<br \/>\npetition to enable this court to interfere in the findings of facts recorded by both the<br \/>\nauthorities. The petitioner has failed to produce or annexe the sale register to show<br \/>\nhis bonafide even before this court.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      No order is passed as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 9.8.2010<br \/>\nPravin\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; &#8230; on 9 August, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 28 Case :- WRIT &#8211; C No. &#8211; 27486 of 2008 Petitioner :- Gyan Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; Civil Supply &amp; Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajesh [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#039; Secy. Food &amp; ... on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#039; Secy. Food &amp; ... on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-19T20:35:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; &#8230; on 9 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-19T20:35:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1981,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Food &amp; ... on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-19T20:35:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; &#8230; on 9 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Food &amp; ... on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Food &amp; ... on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-19T20:35:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; &#8230; on 9 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-19T20:35:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010"},"wordCount":1981,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010","name":"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Food &amp; ... on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-19T20:35:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gyan-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-food-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gyan Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru&#8217; Secy. Food &amp; &#8230; on 9 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}