# Garahan Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. And Others - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 232 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-09-19 - **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Abhinava Upadhya - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/garahan-ram-v-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-and-others-42447 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Essential Commodities Act 1955-State Govt. issued U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 2004-Power of suspension and cancellation of fair price shop given by G.O. 30.09.2004-suspension of fair price shop by D.S.O.-questioned on ground in rural areas-D.S.O. Has no powerheld-misconceived G.O. 30.09.2004 empowers the District Magistrate as well as D.S.O. To carry out the inspection of fair price shop in rural areas-and to take final action including suspension and cancellation. Held: Para-6 The U.P. Scheduled Commodity Distribution Order, 2004 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the said order of 2004, the State Government is empowered to issue orders regulating inspection and monitoring of the fair price shops. The power of the State Government is clearly provided for in clauses 21 and 23 of 2004 Order. The State Government having specifically provided for empowering the District Supply Officer and the District Magistrate to take all action including suspension and cancellation, the submission of the petitioner that the District Supply Officer has no jurisdiction to suspend the fair price shop agreement is without any substance. ## Text 232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. 18. So far as the respondent No.4, Sri Ajai Pal Singh is concerned, his appointment by the District Inspector of Schools through the order dated 19.9.2012 cannot be sustained insofar as it relates to appointment on the post in question in Lala Hariram Inter College, Khudaganj, Shahjahan. The same is accordingly set aside with a direction that the claim of the respondent no.4 shall be considered by the District Inspector of Schools for being appointed in some other institution where the vacancy is available in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 101 to 107 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act contained in Chapter III thereof. 19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. THE HON'BLE ABHINAVA UPADHYA,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8308 of2013 Garahan Ram ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Essential Commodities Act 1955-State Govt. issued U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 2004-Power of suspension and cancellation of fair price shop given by G.O. 30.09.2004-suspension of fair price shop by D.S.O.-questioned on ground in rural areas-D.S.O. Has no powerheld-misconceived G.O. 30.09.2004 empowers the District Magistrate as well as D.S.O. To carry out the inspection of fair price shop in rural areas-and to take final action including suspension and cancellation. Held: Para-6 The U.P. Scheduled Commodity Distribution Order, 2004 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the said order of 2004, the State Government is empowered to issue orders regulating inspection and monitoring of the fair price shops. The power of the State Government is clearly provided for in clauses 21 and 23 of 2004 Order. The State Government having specifically provided for empowering the District Supply Officer and the District Magistrate to take all action including suspension and cancellation, the submission of the petitioner that the District Supply Officer has no jurisdiction to suspend the fair price shop agreement is without any substance. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is finally disposed of. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.2.2013 passed by the District Supply Officer by which order, 1 All] Garahan Ram Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. And Others 233 the petitioner's fair price shop agreement has been suspended. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer by the order of Sub Divisional Officer and the District Supply Officer has no jurisdiction to suspend the fair price shop agreement. 5. Learned Standing Counsel was allowed time to obtain instruction by the order dated 14.2.2013. Learned Standing Counsel after instruction has submitted that the District Supply Officer is fully empowered to suspend a fair price shop agreement. He submits that the Government Order dated 30.9.2004 has been issued by the Government which has clearly provided that the District Magistrate and the District Supply Officer are entitled to carry out inspection and to take final action including suspension and cancellation of fair price shop agreement situate in rural or urban areas. Para 2 of the said Government Order provided as follows: "Vibhinn Zilo Dwara Shashan Se Gramin Kshetra Evam Shahari Kshetra Mein Uchit Dar Dukano Ke Dandatmak Karyawahi (Nilamban/Nirastikaran Aadi) Ke Adhikar Ki Stithi Spashta Karne Ke Sambandh Mein Margdarshan Ki Apeksha Ki Gayi Hai. Ukt Ke Pariprekshya Mein Mujhse Yah Kahne Ki Apeksha Ki Gayi Hai Kii Zila Adhikari Tatha Zilapurti Adhikari Ko Sampoorna Zile Ke ( Jisme Nagriya Evam Gramin Dono Kshetra Sammilit Honge) Lakshit Jan Vitran Pranali Ke Sabhi Dukaon Ke Nirikshan Tatha Unke Virudhdh Dandatmak Karyahi ( Nilamban/Niristikaran Aadi) Karne Ka Adhikar Hoga. Up Zila Adhikari Ko Apne Tehsil Mein Stith Sabhi Dukaon Ke Nirikshan Tatha Unke Virudhdh Dandatmak Karyahi ( Nilamban/Nirastikaran Aadi) Karne Ka Adhikar Yathawat Rahega." 6. The U.P. Scheduled Commodity Distribution Order, 2004 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the said order of 2004, the State Government is empowered to issue orders regulating inspection and monitoring of the fair price shops. The power of the State Government is clearly provided for in clauses 21 and 23 of 2004 Order. The State Government having specifically provided for empowering the District Supply Officer and the District Magistrate to take all action including suspension and cancellation, the submission of the petitioner that the District Supply Officer has no jurisdiction to suspend the fair price shop agreement is without any substance. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be allowed some time to submit reply to the show cause notice as required by the order dated 1.2.2013. The petitioner may submit his reply along with evidence within ten days and the District Supply Officer after considering the reply shall take a final decision according to Government Order dated 30.9.2004. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. --------- 234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9505 of 2013 Kedar Nath IInd ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareillyand Others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Satyendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Sri Samir Sharma Sri A.K. Saxena Constitution of India, Article 226-Award with direction to reinstatement and in leu of back wages compensation of Rs. 50,000-received without protestwhether can be allowed to challenge?- held-"no"-apart from finding regarding successful working during this periodnot specifically denied-can not be interfered by Writ Court. Held: Para-5 The Court further finds that compensation in lieu of back wages has already been received by the petitioner without any protest. Once the award has been complied with and the amount of compensation has been received by the workman without any protest, it is no longer open for him to turn around and approach the writ court questioning the denial of back wages. Such practice at the behest of the workman at this belated stage is deprecated. Case Law discussed: 2009 Labour Industrial Cases 415; 2005 (5) SCC 591; 2005 (2) SCC 363 (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Saxena for the respondents. 2. The award of the Labour Court was published in the year 2009 directing reinstatement of the workman and in lieu of back wages compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded. The services of the petitioner workman was terminated in the year 1991, which was referred for adjudication in the year 1993. The award was given in the year 2009. The employers have accepted the award and have reinstated the workman and has also paid the compensation of Rs.50000/- in lieu of back wages. 3. The petitioner has now approached this Court challenging that part of the award by which back wages has been denied. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion, that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In the first instance the Court finds, that the award was made in the year 2009. No explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why he has approached the Court belatedly. Consequently, on the ground of laches, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned award. 5. The Court further finds that compensation in lieu of back wages has already been received by the petitioner without any protest. Once the award has been complied with and the amount of compensation has been received by the workman without any protest, it is no longer open for him to turn around and approach the writ court questioning the denial of back wages. Such practice at the behest of the workman at this belated stage is deprecated.