Any certain irregularities allegedly committed by any person, the fair licence of the person Will be made as a subject matter of an inquiry: High Court Of Uttarakhand
The illegalities committed by respondent No.7 in collusion with officials of the Supplies Department, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA,  in the matter [WPMS No.1876 of 2021]. Respondent No.7, was a fair price shop licence holder of Village Kishanpur, Jamalpur, District Haridwar. The subject matter of an inquiry came into action because of the irregularities allegedly committed by respondent No.7. The petitioner contends that the proceedings, which are being contemplated against respondent No.7, are in contravention to the proceedings, as contemplated under the Government Order dated 14.08.2013. The petitioner has filed this writ of mandamus, with the following reliefs:- They also mentioned that, if the status of the petitioner is taken into consideration, it has been argued by the Counsel, that the petitioner is a resident of the Village, and is one of the poorest person, who can maintain a writ petition for a direction for holding a fair inquiry under the premonition as if the inquiry would not be concluded following the law. The writ petition looks into the nature of relief, which has been preferred, would not fall within the ambit of the writs of mandamus, and the circumstances under which, it could be issued, because there is no apparent breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner nor there is any infringement of his right, In fact, the entire action, which has been taken against the respondent No.7, is qua against the other respondents of the writ petition. The petitioner individually can be told that he has got no right as such to seek a writ of mandamus. The Hon’ble Court perused the facts,-“It thought that that the inquiry contemplated against respondent No.7, would is expected to be conducted by the Competent Authority following the law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly”.
Office Notes reports orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures sl. No COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.18721 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma J. Mr. Bilal Ahmed Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Negi Additional CSC for the State of Uttarakhand respondent Nos.1 to 6. Respondent No.7 in the present writ petition is a fair price shop licence holder of Village Kishanpur Jamalpur District Haridwar. As against certain irregularities allegedly committed by the respondent No.7 the fair price shop licence of the respondent No.7 was made a subject matter of an inquiry which is pending consideration before the Competent Authorities. proceedings which are being contemplated respondent No.7 proceedings contemplated under the Government Order dated 14.08.2013 because the change of category there should also have been a prior proposal of the “Gaon Sabha” in an open meeting which was not held in the instant case and as such the action ought to have been taken in terms of the said Government Order. The petitioner has filed this writ of mandamus with the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry regarding the illegalities and irregularities being committed by respondent No.7 collusion with officials of the Supplies Department and accordingly suitable action be taken against the erring II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and complaint representation moved by petitioner and other villagers regarding illegalities committed by respondent No.7 in collusion with officials of the Supplies Department.” In fact if the status of the petitioner is taken into consideration it has been argued by the Counsel that the petitioner is a resident of the Village and is one of the most poorest person who can maintain a writ petition for a direction for holding a fair inquiry under the premonition as if the inquiry would not be concluded in accordance with law. Even if it is presumed for a moment that there is a slightest apprehension with the petitioner that inquiry would not be concluded in accordance with law. Though it is unfounded but still after the culmination of the inquiry the petitioner’s legal right if at all is affected by the decision which is taken by the Competent Authority is not prejudiced rather his right is not curtailed even to approach before any other superior forum against the action if any taken against the respondent No.7. The writ petition looking to the nature of relief which has been preferred would not fall within the ambit of the writs of mandamus and the circumstances under which it could be issued is no apparent breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner nor there is any infringement of his right which has been guaranteed to the petitioner under the Statutes. In fact the entire action which has been taken against the respondent No.7 is qua against the other respondents of the writ petition. The petitioner individually in person has got no right as such to seek for a writ of mandamus. Having said so and it goes without saying that the inquiry contemplated against the respondent No.7 would obviously is expected to be conducted by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. 16.09.2021 