Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
(2.) On 12.1.2017, the following order was passed:- Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4, who has put in appearance today. An affidavit of compliance of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, dated 11.1.2017, has been filed today, which is taken on record. The aforesaid Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh is also personally present in Court. He states that due to ignorance of the principles for grant of interim relief, he had passed the impugned interim order dated 8.12.2016, therefore, he tenders unconditional apology for the mistake. He undertakes that in future he shall not repeat such type of mistake. Learned standing counsel states that now the appeal of respondent no.4 stands transferred to the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Allahabad Division, Allahabad, who shall make every effort to decide the Appeal No.C-20160200001057 of 2016 ( Lal chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. & others ) expeditiously. It is astonishing that the authorities to whom the appellate or the revisional jurisdiction has been conferred, are not being trained by the State Government for discharging their statutory obligations, while passing interim or final orders. It needs to be emphasized that the State Government must convene some training programme for these officers, so that they may be able to discharge smoothly their statutory duties under the relevant Act and the Rules, which shall ultimately be beneficial to people who are before them as litigant. I hope and trust that the State government shall take appropriate steps in this regard. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the apology tendered by the aforesaid Additional Commissioner, the Court gives him an opportunity to go through the principles of passing of interim orders settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in JT 2009 (15) SC 33 (paragraph 13), Kashi Math Samsthan & Anr. v. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & Anr. , JT 2009 (12) SC 240 (Paragraph Nos. 22 to 31), Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others , JT 2000 (7) SC 151, M/s S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. M/s Cadbury (India ) Ltd. and (1993) 3 SCC 161, Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi . The Court further directs the aforesaid Additional Commissioner to remain personally present on 17.1.2017 and to indicate on the said date the principles for grant of interim relief, so that the litigants before him may not suffer due to his ignorance about the settled principles for grant of interim relief. Put up on 17.1.2017.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned interim order dated 8.12.2016 has been passed without keeping in mind the settled principles for grant of interim relief. The impugned order is wholly arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the appeal of the respondent no.4 is pending before the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Allahabad Division, Allahabad, which may be directed to be decided at an early date.;