# Harpal v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 189
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-02-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58470 of 2005
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, R.N. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harpal-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41010
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226suspension of licence for running Fair
Price shop-along with suspension order
no show cause notice served-which is
mandatory requirement in view of G.O.
29.07.2004-apart from allegations not
made in suspension order cannot be
allowed to be supplemented by counter
affidavit-held-suspension order vaguecannot sustain.

Held: Para 13

The decision in Smt. Alka Rani's case
applies to the facts of the case in hand,
as in this case also the allegations are
vague
and
specific
instances
and
material sought to be read in support of
the allegations against the petitioner
have not been mentioned. If no material
is mentioned in the suspension order
then substituting the material in the
counter affidavit would be of no help to
the respondents. We further find that
along with the suspension order no show
cause notice had been issued to the
petitioner directing him to show cause as
to
why
his
fair
price
shop
licenses/agreement
may
not
be
cancelled.
The
impugned
suspension
order is vitiated on this ground alone
being
in
violation
of
mandatory
requirements of G.O. dated 29.7.2004.
Case law discussed:
2007(4) AWC 3937, (1991) 4 SCC 139, (1998)
8 SCC 1, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60978 of
2005

## Text

1 All] Harpal V. State of U.P. and another
189
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58470 of 2005

Harpal

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Shakti Dhar Dubey
Sri. Neeraj Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. O.S. Tripathi
Sri. Ganga Prasad
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226suspension of licence for running Fair
Price shop-along with suspension order
no show cause notice served-which is
mandatory requirement in view of G.O.
29.07.2004-apart from allegations not
made in suspension order cannot be
allowed to be supplemented by counter
affidavit-held-suspension order vaguecannot sustain.

Held: Para 13

The decision in Smt. Alka Rani's case
applies to the facts of the case in hand,
as in this case also the allegations are
vague
and
specific
instances
and
material sought to be read in support of
the allegations against the petitioner
have not been mentioned. If no material
is mentioned in the suspension order
then substituting the material in the
counter affidavit would be of no help to
the respondents. We further find that
along with the suspension order no show
cause notice had been issued to the
petitioner directing him to show cause as
to
why
his
fair
price
shop
licenses/agreement
may
not
be
cancelled.
The
impugned
suspension
order is vitiated on this ground alone
being
in
violation
of
mandatory
requirements of G.O. dated 29.7.2004.
Case law discussed:
2007(4) AWC 3937, (1991) 4 SCC 139, (1998)
8 SCC 1, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60978 of
2005

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.)

1. The petitioner is a fair price shop
licensee. His licence has been suspended
by order dated 28.5.2005 passed by Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, District-
Bareilly. The petitioner has challenged the
suspension order on the ground that the
suspension order does not disclose any
material which is to be relied upon by the
respondents during the enquiry. It has not
been mentioned as to when and who had
inspected the shop of the petitioner, when
he found that the notice was not displayed
on the shop. The allegation that the
petitioner had not distributed sugar etc. to
persons who were below poverty line is
vague as no details of persons had been
mentioned to whom sugar etc. were not
distributed. It has also not been mentioned
as to whom the kerosene oil was sold at
the rate of Rs.12/- per litre, in excess of
the scheduled price, and in violation of
the
agreement.
The
petitioner
has
challenged the suspension order dated
28.5.2005 by means of this writ petition.

2. We have heard Sri S.D.Dubey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri O.S. Tripathi, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has urged that the impugned
suspension order has been passed in
violation of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
G.O. dated 20.12.2004. He has further
urged that Government order dated
20.12.2004 is ultra vires. The learned
counsel further urged that the impugned
suspension order has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice.
He has lastly urged that the petitioner
has been deprived of his right to
livelihood due to illegal and arbitrary
action of the respondents. He placed
reliance on a division bench decision of
this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.60978 of 2005 Smt.A1ka Rani Vs.
State of U.P. and others decided on
14.9.2005. On the other hand, the
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel has urged that there were
complaints against the petitioner of
irregularities and the complaints have
been filed along with the counter
affidavit. He has placed reliance on a
division bench decision of this court in
Gopi
Vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
others,2007(4) AWC 3937.

3. The first question that arises for
consideration is whether the impugned
suspension order has been passed in.
violation of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and
20.12.2004? The State Government with
an objective to ensure fair distribution
of
essential
commodities,
to
the
residents of the State including persons
living below the poverty line, had been
issuing various government orders from
time to time for equitable distribution of
sugar, kerosene oil etc., by appointing
agents/licensees in each district for
running
fair
price
shops
under
licenses/agreements. It came to the
notice of the State Government that
large number of its officers were
suspending/
cancelling
the
licenses/agreements
arbitrarily
and
whimsically
without
giving
any
opportunity of hearing to the licensees.
It is well known that fair price shops
licenses/agreements
are
sometimes
suspended/cancelled
rightly
as
the
licensees are found indulging in malpractices and the officers are justified in
suspending/cancelling
the
license/
agreement. But it is equally well known
that, largely, fair price shops licenses/
agreements
are
suspended/cancelled
arbitrarily by the officers for political
reasons or under political, pressure,
Iicenses/agreements
are
sometimes
suspended cancelled due to rivalry with
the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha because
he is unhappy with the licensee, and
sometimes licenses/ agreements are
suspended/cancelled due to "partibandi"
in the village. The State Government
took serious note of the fact that the
authorised officers of the State as well
as
District
Supply
Officers
were
suspending and cancelling fair price
shop licences of the fair price shop
licensees and attaching their shops to
another fair price shop licensees without
any preliminary enquiry in an ex-parte
manner and prior to suspending the fair
price shop licence no preliminary
enquiry was being got conducted and
before cancellation of fair price shop
licence no opportunity of hearing was
being
provided
which
resulted
in
passing illegal orders, contrary to the
principles of natural justice, by the
concerned authorities and sometimes
even innocent fair price shop licensees
were subjected to arbitrary action of the
authorities. Therefore, for the first time,
the State Government granted a fair deal
to fair price shops licensees/agents and
tried save them from arbitrary action of
the officers and issued G.O. dated
29.7.2004 laying down the procedure
for suspending/cancelling the fair price
1 All] Harpal V. State of U.P. and another
191
shop license/agreement so that its
officers may act in a legal manner and
by following correct procedure take
action against fair price shops licensees
so that un-necessary litigation may be
avoided. In paragraph 2 the State
Government laid down the procedure to
be
followed
by
the
concerned
authorities which is extracted below:-

"2(I) mfpr nj dh nqdku dk fuyEcu ek= fdlh
O;fDr dh f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij ugha fd;k tk;A ;fn fdlh
nqdkunkj ds fo:) fdlh lzksr ls f'kdk;r izkIr gksrh gS rks
igys mldh izkjfEHkd tkap djk;h tk;A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkaWp
esa nqdkunkj ds fo:) ,slh xEHkhj vfu;ferrk,a izFke n`"V;k
fl) gks jgh gksa ftuds vk/kkj ij nqdkunkj dh nqdku
fujLr gksus dh lEHkkouk gks rHkh nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k
tk; vkSj lkFk gh lkFk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl
tkjh fd;k tk; fd mldh nqdku D;ksa u fujLr dj nh
tk;A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa ik;k tk; fd vfu;ferrk bruh
xEHkhj ugha gS fd nqdku ds fujLrhdj.k dh lEHkkouk gks rks
dsoy dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;A
fuyEcu&vkns'k@dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ,d "Lihfdax vkMZj"
gksuk pkfg, rFkk mlesa izkjfEHkd tk¡p esa ik;h x;h mu lHkh
vfu;ferrkvksa dk fooj.k gksuk pkfg, ftudk mRrj
nqdkunkj ls visf{kr gksA "

4. From the aforesaid government
order it is apparent that if a complaint is
received against a fair price shop licensee,
a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted
and the concerned officer has to be
satisfied that on the basis of the enquiry
report the licensee was prima facie guilty
of serious irregularities which may
warrant cancellation of his fair price shop
"-license/agreement, only then the licence
could be suspended and along with the
suspension order, show cause notice was
required to be issued to the licensee to
show cause as to why his licence may not
be cancelled. It was further provided that
if in the preliminary enquiry report it is
found that the irregularities are not serious
enough on the basis of which the licence
of the licensee could be cancelled then
only a show cause notice be issued, but in
either case a speaking order was required
to be passed in which all the irregularities
found in the enquiry on which a reply was
expected from the licensee must be
mentioned. In view of clause 2(i) of the
G.O dated 29.7.2004 the concerned
authority is required to arrive at a decision
on objective consideration as to whether
the irregularities found against licensee in
the enquiry are serious or not, and only
then he can proceed either to suspend the
fair price shop licence and issue show
cause notice for cancellation or he may
merely issue a show cause notice only to
the licensee. The decision cannot be taken
by the officer on subjective satisfaction.
We are of the considered opinion that in
view of the provisions of G.O. dated
29.7.2004 the concerned authority or
officer should take a decision on the
enquiry report on objective consideration
by recording his reasons by a speaking
order which should exist on the record. In
absence
any
order
on
objective
consideration on the record would render
the
order
of
suspension/cancellation
arbitrary
and
in
violation
of
the
mandatory provisions of G.O. dated
29.7.2004.

5. Paragraph 2(ii) of the G.O. dated
29.7.2004 empowers the authorities to
make surprise inspection and if he finds
any serious irregularity then in his
discretion the officer may suspend the
licence. Even if the authority finds any
irregular
work
or
irregularity
in
distribution or black marketing by the
licensee even then he is empowered to
suspend the licence, but in the suspension
order it is mandatory for him to mention
every irregularity found by him and he is
also required to issue a show cause notice
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
to the licensee to show cause as to why
the licence may not be cancelled.

6. It is also relevant to extract
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Government
Order dated 29.7.2004:

"4. fuyfEcr dh x;h nqdkuksa ds fo:) tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh
vf/kdre ,d ekg esa vfuok;Z :i ls iwjh dh tk;sxh rFkk
tk¡p esa lacaf/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk iwjk ekSdk fn;k
tk;sxkA lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og tk¡p
esa viuk iwjk lg;ksx ns rkfd tk¡p dk dk;Z tYnh ls tYnh
iwjk fd;k tk lds rFkk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa
xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsA ;fn
nqdkunkj }kjk tk¡p esa lg;ksx ugha fd;k tk jgk gks vkSj
tk¡p esa foyEc djus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gks rks
nqdkunkj dks bl vk'k; dk Hkh uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk
vkSj viuk i{k j[kus dk vfUre volj iznku fd;k tk;sxkA

5. tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh vf/kdre ,d ekg esa iw.kZ djds
fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk
vkSj xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij ,d Lihfdax vkMZj tkjh fd;k
tk;sxkA bl vkns'k esa ;g Li"V mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd
lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;k vkSj
mls lquk x;kA ;fn nqdkunkj us tk¡p esa lg;ksx ugha fd;k
gks rks vfUre vkns'k esa bl ckr dk Hkh iwjk mYys[k gksuk
pkfg, fd nqdkunkj dks volj iznku fd;k x;k rFkk vfUre
uksfVl fn;k x;k ijUrq mlus tkucw> dj volj dk mi;ksx
ugha fd;k vkSj tk¡p esa lg;ksx ugha fd;kA"

7. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
government order provides that the shops
where the licence of fair price shop dealer
has been suspended enquiry must be
completed within a period of one month
and in the enquiry the licensee should be
given opportunity of hearing and if the
licensee tries to delay the enquiry then a
notice be given to him fixing a last date of
enquiry and thereafter final speaking
order on merits would be passed. The
provisions of paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 are
mandatory
in
nature
and
its
non
compliance would vitiate the order passed
by the concerned authority. Paragraph 7
had fixed a period of one month for
enquiry and another month for passing
cancellation order and for appointment of
new dealer. It further provides that where
a fair price shop licence has been
suspended/cancelled the fair price shop
will be attached for a maximum period of
two months.

8. The Additional Chief Standing
Counsel has urged that The Uttar Pradesh
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution
Order, 2004 (in brief the 2004 Order)
which was notified and published on
20.12.2004
had
superseded
the
government order dated 29.7.2004. The
argument is devoid of any merits. It is
necessary to extract clauses 30 and 31 of
2004 Order as under:-

"30. Savings- Any act performed
under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Scheduled Commodities Order, 1990,
which is hereby repealed prior to
commencement of this order shall be
deemed to have been validly performed
under the provisions of this order.
31. Provisions of the order to
prevail over previous orders of State
Government- The provisions of this
order shall have effect notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any
order made by the State Government
before the commencement of this order
except as respects anything done, or
omitted to be done thereunder before such
commencement."

9. From a reading of clause 30 it is
clear that the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled
Commodities Order, 1990 was superseded
and repealed. Clause 31 of 2004 Order
states that it will have effect irrespective
on any thing contrary to it contained in
any earlier order issued by the State
Government. The 2004 Order was issued
1 All] Harpal V. State of U.P. and another
193
by the State Government for maintaining
the supplies of food grains and other
essential commodities and for securing
their
equitable
distribution
and
availability at fair prices. Its clause 2l is
concerned with monitoring of fair price
shops by the food officer and he was to
make regular inspections. Clause 22 of
the Order gave power to the Food Officer
and other officers the power of entry,
search and seizure and clause 23 gave
power to the State Government to
authorise any person to inspect the stocks
of scheduled commodities other than the
officers mentioned in clause 22. So far as
the maintenance of supply of food grains
and other essential commodities and their
distribution and availability at fair price
shop was concerned the 2004 Order
provided stringent methods to deal with
the erring licensees of fair price shops.
But the 2004 Order did not provide any
procedure for suspension/cancellation of
the licences or agreement of fair price
shop licensees. The 2004 Order did not
lay down any procedure as to how and in
what manner the licence/agreement of a
fair price shop licensee/agent could be
suspended or cancelled nor any time
frame had been provided. On the other
hand, the . government order dated
29.7.2004 prescribes the procedure for
taking recourse to suspension/cancellation
by the officers and fixes a time frame for
taking action against the licensees. The
government order dated 29.7.2004 does
not contain any provision which is
contrary to 2004 Order. The 2004 Order
has not superseded the government order
dated
29.7.2004.
The
G.O
dated
29.7.2004
and
2004
Order
dated
20.12.2004 operate in different fields with
the same object to ensure equitable and
fair distribution of essential commodities
to the people. We are of the considered
opinion that the G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and
the 2004 Order dated 20.12.2004 are valid
and are still in force and are applicable in
the State of Uttar Pradesh.

10. The next question is whether the
impugned suspension order has been
passed in violation of principles of natural
justice?
From
the
perusal
of
the
suspension order it is clear that no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner either at the time of enquiry or
before passing of the order suspending the
fair price shop license/agreement of the
petitioner. In the counter affidavit it had
not been stated that opportunity of hearing
was given at any stage. The enquiry was
conducted behind the back of the
petitioner. The entire proceedings were in
violation of the principles of natural
justice.
The
argument
of
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel that
the principles of natural justice do not
apply to the cases where fair price shop
licence had been granted in view of the
decision in Gopi's case, cannot be
accepted. The G.O. dated 29.7.2004
clearly
mandates
and
directs
the
authorities to comply with the principles
of
natural
justice
before
suspending/cancelling fair price shop
licenses/agreements. It appears that this
G.O. dated 29.7.2004 was not placed
before the division bench which decided
Gopi's case and in ignorance of this
government order the decision has been
rendered and the decision has been passed
in sub-silentio in view of the law declared
by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and
another vs. Synthetic and Chemicals
and another (1991) 4 SCC 139. Since
the G.O. dated 29.7.2004 was not
considered by this court the decision in
Gopi's case cannot be said to be a good
law or a precedent.
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

11. The next question is whether the
petitioner
has
to
be
relegated
to
alternative remedy of filing an appeal to
challenge the suspension order which has
been passed in violation of principles of
natural justice? The learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently
urged that even if there was violation of
principles of natural justice the petitioner
had an alternative remedy to file an
appeal
before
the
Commissioner
challenging the supension order. It is true
that the suspension or cancellation of a
fair
price
shop
licence
could
be
challenged under clause 28(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004 before the
concerned Divisional Commissioner, but
the appeal under clause 28(3) lies only
against the suspension or cancellation of
agreement of the fair price shop. But
where
an
order
is
passed
suspending/cancelling the fair price shop
license/agreement
in
violation
of
principles of natural justice the alternative
remedy would not be a bar and a writ
petition would be maintainable under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
has been held by the apex court In
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of
Trade
Marks,
Mumbai
and
others(1998) 8 SCC 1 that even if an
alternative statutory remedy is available it
would not be a bar in maintenance of a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution
In
at
least
three
contingencies,
(i)
where
the
writ
petition
seeks
enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights; (ii) where there is violation of
principles of natural justice; or (iii) where
the order or the proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act
is challenged. We have already held that it
was mandatory for the authorities/officers
to comply with the principles of natural
justice before suspending/cancelling the
fair
price
shop
licenses/agreements.
Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that the impugned suspension
order has been passed in violation of
principles of natural justice, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner without
availing the alternative remedy of appeal,
is maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

12. The last question is whether on
merits the suspension order is liable to be
set aside? In view of the findings recorded
by us that the suspension order was
passed in violation of principles of natural
justice, it is not necessary to examine
whether the order suspending the license
of the petitioner was in accordance with
government
orders,
but
since
the
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
vehemently attempted to defend the order
on merits, we consider it necessary to
examine the correctness of the suspension
order in brief. The petitioner's fair price
shop
licence/agreement
has
been
suspended. The suspension order does not
disclose that any opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner. It appears that
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur,
Bareilly on the basis of oral complaints of
the village got an enquiry conducted
against the petitioner on 27.5.2005 and in
the enquiry it was found that the shop was
closed and rate board was not put outside
the shop. The fair price shop licensee was
charging Rs.12/- per litre in excess of the
scheduled price of kerosene oil which was
violation of condition no.24 (Ga) of the
license/agreement. In the enquiry ration
cards were also inspected and it was
found that every month kerosene oil was
not properly distributed. Sugar was also
1 All] Harpal V. State of U.P. and another
195
not properly distributed to persons who
were below the poverty line which was
violation of condition no.3 of the
licence/agreement. The shop of the
petitioner was suspended and attached to
another fair price licensee Devendra
Kumar Pathak. It is not mentioned in the
suspension order that who conducted the
enquiry and when? It is also not clear that
if the shop was closed at the time of
enquiry then from where this fact was
revealed that the petitioner was charging
Rs.12/- per litre in excess of scheduled
price of kerosene oil and from where the
ration cards were inspected by the enquiry
officer. The impugned suspension order
does not disclose that any show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner to
submit his reply as to why the petitioner's
licence may not be cancelled. According
to learned counsel for the petitioner on the
basis
of
such
vague
allegations
licence/agreement of the petitioner could
not be suspended. He has placed reliance
on the decision of this court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 60978 of 2005 Smt.
Alka Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 14.9.2005. The order of the
division bench is extracted below:-

"We have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel. Petitioner's fair price shop
licence was suspended and by the
impugned order dated 22.8.2005 it has
been cancelled. The cancellation order
says
that
despite
opportunity
the
petitioner did not submit any reply.

Normally, we would have directed
the petitioner to avail alternative remedy
of appeal, but we find from the show
cause notice (annexure 4 to this writ
petition) that almost all the charges are
absolutely vague without giving any
specific instance and without mentioning
any material on the basis of which each of
the charges is proposed to be proved
against the petitioner. For example when
charge
no.2
says
that
distribution
according
to
entitlement
of
ration
cardholders has not been made every
month, the notice should also have
indicated when and to which cardholders
has not been made every month, the
notice. should also have indicated when
and to which card holder distribution was
not· made. Similarly, when charge no.4
says that kerosene oil is being sold at the
rate of Rs.11/- per litre, it should have
been disclosed when and from which
person such extra value was charged.

Without specific instances of this
kind and without informing the material
which is sought to be read against the
petitioner in support of these charges, no
proper effective defence or reply was
possible. The only thing, which the
petitioner could have done, was to make
an equally vague denial that he was not
guilty of these charges, which ultimately
would lead nowhere. Levelling of charge
is easy, proving of charge is another
matter. A person can be punished for
proved charges and not for levelled
charges. The standard of proof may vary
but nevertheless proof must be there. If
evidence is there to prove charges, this
Court will not go into the sufficiency of
the evidence. But a finding based on no
evidence is not sustainable.

In the circumstances, we find that the
impugned order is based on no material.
The writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 22.8.2005 is
quashed."
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

13. The decision in Smt. Alka Rani's
case applies to the facts of the case in
hand, as in this case also the allegations
are vague and specific instances and
material sought to be read in support of
the allegations against the petitioner have
not been mentioned. If no material is
mentioned in the suspension order then
substituting the material in the counter
affidavit would be of no help to the
respondents. We further find that along
with the suspension order no show cause
notice had been issued to the petitioner
directing him to show cause as to why his
fair price shop licenses/agreement may
not
be
cancelled.
The
impugned
suspension order is vitiated on this ground
alone being in violation of mandatory
requirements of G.O. dated 29.7.2004.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are
in agreement with learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned suspension
order is vague and on the basis of which
petitioner's
fair
price
shop
licence/agreement could not be cancelled
and the impugned order deserves to be
quashed.

15. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
suspension order dated 25.5.2005 passed
by respondent No.2, Annexure-l to the
writ petition, is quashed.

16. The parties shall bear their own
costs.

Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58671 of 2007
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8439 of 2008

Paras Nath

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Varanasi and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. V.K. Singh
Sri. M.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. Shailendra kumar Singh
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953Section 48-Revision order condoning the
delay in filing objection under section 9
A(2)-not interlocutory order-such order
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer
is
subject
to
revisional
jurisdiction
of
D.D.C.

Held: Para 15

In view of the foregoing discussions it is
clear
that
an
order
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer
condoning
the
delay in an objection under Section
9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 terminates the proceeding
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
hence the same cannot be treated to be
an interlocutory order and is subject to
revisional jurisdiction of Deputy Director
of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings-Act,1953.
Case law discussed:
1972 R.D. 80, 2002(93) R.D. 764, 2003(94)
R.D. 353, 2004(97) R.D. 295, 1984 R.D. 382,