Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38899 of 2018
Petitioner :- Golu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 04 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Allahabad, whereby, the petitioner has been asked to deposit recovery amount relating to maldistribution of essential commodities, as well as the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the District Supply Officer, Allahabad, whereby, the license of fair price shop in question was suspended.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court passed in Writ- C No. 5243 of 2019 (Sameer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, dt. 14.2.2019), wherein, the Court has allowed the writ petition as well as the judgement and order dated 18.2.2019 passed in Writ C No.5667 of 2019 (Shahin Begum and 3 others vs. State of UP and 4 others) and as such he submits that the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner in the present matter.
Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel raised two-fold objections. Firstly, against the order impugned, the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy to file an appeal and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy. Secondly, on account of mass bungling in the distribution of the essential commodities, the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.4839 of 2018 (The Sahkari Sasta Galla Vikreta Union, Tehsil Sardhana, Meerut vs. State of UP and 4 others, dt. 5.12.2018) has proceeded to ask the Senior Superintendent of Police (STF), Lucknow to ensure expeditious enquiry/investigation in the matter across the State and six months time has been accorded for the same. It has also been contended that the aforesaid matter is distinguishable from the present matter and as such no relief can be extended to the petitioner by this Court.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner informed to the Court that in response to the order impugned, the recovery amount has been deposited with the Authority concerned and as such, in case the petitioner is relegated to prefer an appeal, then in such a situation in case petitioner succeeds in the appeal in question, leave may be accorded to the petitioner to approach the Department concerned for release of the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case any such appeal is being preferred by the petitioner along-with stay application within two weeks from today, the appellate authority would proceed to decide the stay application on its own merit within further three weeks time but certainly after affording opportunity to all stakeholders in the matter. The appeal may also be decided expeditiously. It is made clear that in case petitioner succeeds in the appeal in question, then he would be at liberty to make a proper application/representation before the Authority concerned for release of the recovery amount.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019
A. Pandey