Allowed

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2018WRIC/25101/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash orders suspending his fair price shop and directed the respondent to restore the license. The court allowed the writ, quashed the impugned orders due to violations of natural justice and delay, and remanded the matter to the authorities.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings were remanded back to the concerned authorities to take a decision on or before 31st October, 2018.

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25101 of 2017 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Pratap Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶3

Prayer prayed in this petition reads as under :

¶4

"(I). A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned order dated 12.4.2017 passed by Commissioner ( Food) Allahabad Region, Allahabad in Apepa No. 638 of 2016 and order dated 19.5.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Kunda Pratapgarh. ( Annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition)"

¶5

(II). A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to restore license of petitioner."

¶6

The factual scenario as it emerges that the petitioner was distributing essential commodities. However, a compliant came to be lodged against the petitioner on 27.3.2012 by one Umakant Pandey. The petitioner's fair price shop came to be suspended.

¶7

Against the order of suspension, he preferred the appeal being Appeal No.638 of 2016 before Commissioner ( Food) Allahabad Region, Allahabad. The appeal was allowed.

¶8

Respondent no.3 Sub Divisional Officer Kunda Pratapgarh was sitting on verdict of order passed by appellate Court for long time just to harass petitioner. Petitioner having no any other alternate other than to file Appeal No. 638 of 2016 under Section 28 of Scheduled Commodity Control Order 2004 with stay application accompanied with affidavit before the Commissioner ( Food and Civil Supply) Allahabad, Region Allahabad. The learned Appellate Court without considering urgency fixed 29.8.2016 for hearing on stay application. No order has been on stay application. The order dated 19.5.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Kunda Pratapgarh is against provision of natural justice as well as prepositions laid down by Hon'ble Court in case of Puran Singh Versus State of U.P. and others.

¶9

The fact that in a similar matter, this Court relying on the decision of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB) has held as follows :

¶10

" In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charges will have to be automatically proved can be

¶11

approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in ex parte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect."

¶12

The matter will have to be remanded back as after going through the factual data, it is covered by the decision of this Court passed in Writ C No. 46648 of 2017, the Authority concerned shall take decision on or before 31st October, 2018.

¶13

Petition is allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Mukesh

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rubi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sushma Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sanno Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rooma Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Balvir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others