Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is a fair price shop dealer in Village Bagraua, Block and Tehslil Bilari, District Moradabad had been running his fair price shop for almost 25 years to the utmost satisfaction of the villagers.
(2.) The petitioner states that when the government changed an M.L.A. of the ruling party, arrayed as the respondent no.4 desired his man to run the fair price shop. However, when the petitioner refused to resign on the insistence of the respondent no.4, then one Babu and his muscle men namely, Md. Alam, Mustafa, Nanhey along with certain other unknown persons came to his shop and on gun point asked him to put his signature on an affidavit and on an application which was to the affect that he did not wish to run the shop. This application was thereafter taken by the respondent no.4 to the Sub-divisional Officer who on that very date accepted the resignation of the petitioner. The petitioner was also whisked away and kept in captivity. After the resignation of the petitioner was accepted he was released. Thereafter, he approached the police which refused to register the complaint necessitating the petitioner to approach, on that very date i.e. 13.4.2012, the District Supply Officer, where he handed over his application narrating his tale of woe. The Chief Minister, the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the Commissioner, Moradabad were also approached and informed. However, when no heed was paid to the application of the petitioner, he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.25344 of 2012 (Nazarul Husain Vs. State of U.P. and others) and on 22.5.2012, this Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal which was decided on 22.8.2013. The petitioner had very categorically stated in the appeal also that the signatures were obtained on the affidavit and the application by coersion. All these allegations were raised in the appeal in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5. However, the Appellate Court also did not advert to the grounds as were raised by the petitioner and it did not look into the fact that the petitioner was by force made to sign on the application and on the affidavit.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that this criminal and fraudulent act of the respondent no.4 was neither looked into by the Supply Inspector nor was it considered by the Appellate Court. He submits anything which is done fraudulently gets vitiated and since the Commissioner did not advert to the grounds as were raised by the petitioner, the order deserves to be set aside. To buttress his submission the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25369 of 2009 (Umesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others) delivered on 9.9.2014 and has submitted that when specifically the petitioner raised the issue that his signature was fraudulently obtained by the respondent no.4, then the same should have been dealt with.;