MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-272
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 27,2012

MUNNA LAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Veerendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food) Allahabad Division Allahabad. The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint made by the petitioner alongwith other villagers of village Gobra, Post-Chhatarhara, Tehsil-Bara, District Allahabad, the agreement of fair-price shop settled in favour of the respondent No. 4 was suspended on 20.112007.
(2.) The preliminary inquiry was done by the Naib Tehsildar, Bara. The report was submitted prior to the suspension order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bara, District Allahabad. The respondent No. 4 submitted his explanation on 8.1.2008 to the charge sheet issued to him. Upon consideration of the reply submitted by the respondent No. 4 the agreement of fair-price shop of the respondent No. 4 was cancelled by order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bara, District Allahabad. Against the order dated 3.3.2008, the appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Food) Allahabad Division Allahabad and agreement of fair price shop of the respondent No. 4 was restored,
(3.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was one of the complainant, at whose instance, inquiry was initiated against the respondent No. 4. The complainant has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the appellate authority under Section 287 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order. As is evident from the narration of the fact given above, the petitioner is one of the complainant in the complaint filed against the respondent No. 4.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.