This single judge dismissed the writ petition challenging an administrative order shifting the petitioner to extra duty under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act due to paucity of personnel, holding the assignment was valid and the cause of action had lapsed.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66601 of 2008
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kr Singh,Upendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujeet Kumar
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The matter has been called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition though names of counsel for the petitioner are shown in the cause list. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State is present.
By order dated 31.10.2008 administrative arrangement was made requiring the respondent no.3, Radhey Shyam, Food Inspector, to discharge the functions under The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for additional areas which included Community Healthcentre, Cholapur, Varanasi and Ram Nagar, Nagar Palika Parishad, Varanasi. By order dated 17.10.2008 he was required to discharge additional function under The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. By order dated 31.10.2008 the order dated 17.10.2008 was recalled. Subsequently by order dated 6.11.2008 the order dated 31.10.2008 was recalled. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.11.2008 to the instant writ petition.
The State respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying their action. The stand of the respondent State in the counter affidavit is that the administrative arrangements were made requiring the respondent no.3 to discharge additional functions under The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 due to paucity of personnel. It has been asserted that under the The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder the C.M.O., Varanasi is the competent authority. It is also stated that the respondent no.3 is senior to
the petitioner. It also comes in the record that there were certain complaints against the petitioner which called for the aforesaid arrangements to be made. There is no infirmity in the action of the respondent authorities. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any indefeasible and enforceable right which to continue on a particular post. Moreover 10 years have elapsed. The administrative arrangement must have changed over the past 10 years. The cause of action on which the writ petition is founded does not survive since no subsequent developments have been brought in the record by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018 Pramod
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the administrative arrangement removing the petitioner to extra duty under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is legally sustainable.
Whether the petitioner has an indefeasible and enforceable right to continue on the particular post.
Whether the cause of action survives after a lapse of 10 years without subsequent developments.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arvind Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
