Disposed

Bharat Swayam Sahayata Samuh Thru. the Member Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Supply Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024WRIC/699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed a serious irregularity where essential commodities were lifted in the petitioner's name but sold by respondent officers. The court ordered an inquiry, directed deposit of costs by the lifting officer, and timelines for the District Magistrate to file a report.

What did the court decide?

Ordered DM Bahraich to conduct inquiry; lifting respondent to deposit costs; forbid further disbursement of goods; file counter-affidavit within six weeks.

Bharat Swayam Sahayata Samuh Thru. the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 699 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Bharat Swayam Sahayata Samuh Thru. The Member Smt. Sushila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food And Supply Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadhu Sharan Chaubey,Abha Srivastava,Manish Barnwal

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hom Narayan Awasthi

¶5

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶6

In pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, learned Standing Counsel is unable to receive instruction from the respondent no. 6, i.e., the District Magistrate, Bahraich.

¶7

He prays for further time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶8

Confronted with the said fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the permission dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure No. 8 at page 61 of the writ petition) has been granted to the respondent no. 5 in connivance with respondent nos. 3 & 4 for lifting the essential commodities from the godown in the name of the petitioner. He further submits that the goods, which have been lifted by the respondent no. 5 and sold thereafter, the petitioner has no control. He further submits that any action, which will be taken, will be against the petitioner as the permission for lifting the essential commodities has been granted in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of respondent no. 5.

¶9

Confronted with the said fact and when a pointed query was raised to the learned Standing Counsel as to how the respondent nos. 3 & 4 have granted permission for lifting the essential commodities to respondent no. 5 in the name of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel could not above to reply satisfactorily.

¶10

The matter is serious. Prima facie , it appears that without active connivance of the respondent nos. 3 & 4, the aforesaid permission cannot be granted in favour of the respondent no. 5 mentioning the name of the petitioner.

¶11

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the essential commodities have not been lifted in pursuance of the order dated 08.01.2024, the same shall not be released in favour of the respondent no. 5. In case the respondent no. 5 has already lifted the essential commodities, all the cost of the essential commodities lifted by the respondent no. 5 shall be deposited by the respondent no. 5 within a period of two weeks from

¶12

today and all the responsibility for making any deficiency good shall be of respondent no. 5 in case the essential commodities are lifted.

¶13

It is further directed that the District Magistrate, Bahraich shall personally look into the matter and initiate appropriate inquiry in the matter as to how the order dated 08.01.2024 has been passed in favour of the respondent no. 5 mentioning the name of the petitioner.

¶14

After conclusion of the inquiry, its outcome and action taken against the erring Officers, the District Magistrate shall file counter affidavit duly sworn by him within a period of six weeks from today.

¶15

List this matter after eight weeks.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, in case the essential commodities have been lifted by the respondent no. 5, the same shall not be disbursed further.

¶17

The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the District Magistrate concerned within 24 hours for necessary compliance.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Amit Mishra

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bharat Swayam Sahayata Samuh Thru. the Member Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Supply Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Swayam Sahayata Samuh Thru. the Member Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Supply Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vajid Ali Vs Fast Track Court (Junior Division) Sultanpur and 5 Others

Bharat Kumar Sharma Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar and Another

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Ritesh Chakre vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Pandey vs Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Malihabad, Lko. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others