# M/S Vindhya Oil Traders v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 219
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-02-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56149 of 2010
- **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-vindhya-oil-traders-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41843
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Alternative
Remedy-Cancellation of license of Light
Diesel Oil-Such order applicable under
Para 9 of the Control Order 1981 itselfwithout
availing
statuary
remedydirectly writ Petition not maintainable-if
appeal filed within one month-same be
decided within 2 month thereafter.
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Held: Para 5

Having
regard
to
the
nature
of
controversy in the present writ petition,
we are not inclined to exercise our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India
in
view
of
availability of alternative remedy to the
petitioner of filing appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner concerned.

## Text

1 All] M/S Vindhya Oil Traders V. State of U.P. and others
219
 pendency of criminal case. Even during
the pendency of suspension, increment
could not have been withheld. This
question has been decided by this Court in
Mritunjai Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR
1971 Allahabad 214 and in para 14 of the
judgment this Court has said as under:

"Rule 24 of the Financial Hand Book
Volume II issued under the authority of the
Government of the Uttar Pradesh in
Chapter IV Part II provides that an
increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a
matter of course unless it is withheld. An
increment may be withheld from a
government servant by the Government or
by any authority to whom the Government
may delegate this power under rule 6, if his
conduct has not been good or his work has
not been satisfactory. In ordering the
withholding
of
an
increment,
the
withholding authority shall state the period
for which it is withheld, and whether the
postponement shall have the effect of
postponing future increments. As the
contract of the service of the petitioner
continued even though he was under
suspension, the increment should be
allowed ordinarily to be drawn unless it is
withheld in the manner provided under
Rule 25. As it is not the case of the
opposite parties that it has been so
withheld, the petitioner is entitled to the
increments during the pendency of his
suspension and the subsistence allowance
shall be calculated accordingly, it being
1/3rd of the pay plus dearness allowance."

7. Moreover, the aforesaid criminal
case has already resulted in acquittal of
petitioner vide judgment dated 23rd
November, 2010.

8. In view of the above, denial of
annual increments to the petitioner for the
last more than 25 years and more merely
on one or the other pretext firstly;
suspension and secondly; pendency of
criminal case is wholly arbitrary and
illegal.

9. The writ petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to allow annual
increments to the petitioner since fell due
and to pays arrears of salary accordingly
within two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall also be paid interest on
arrears of salary @ 10% from the date of
filing of writ petition till the amount is
actually paid. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to cost which is quantified to
Rs.20,000/-.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56149 of 2010

M/S Vindhya Oil Traders
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Alternative
Remedy-Cancellation of license of Light
Diesel Oil-Such order applicable under
Para 9 of the Control Order 1981 itselfwithout
availing
statuary
remedydirectly writ Petition not maintainable-if
appeal filed within one month-same be
decided within 2 month thereafter.
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Held: Para 5

Having
regard
to
the
nature
of
controversy in the present writ petition,
we are not inclined to exercise our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India
in
view
of
availability of alternative remedy to the
petitioner of filing appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner concerned.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra,J. )

1. The present writ petition has
been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, inter
alia, praying for quashing the order dated
30th July, 2010 (Annexure - 7 to the writ
petition) passed by the respondent no.2
whereby the licence of the petitioner in
respect of Light Diesel Oil issued under
the Uttar Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil
and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of
Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981
has been cancelled.

2. We have heard Sri Rakesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2
and perused the record.

3. As noted above, the writ petition
is directed against the order dated 30th
July, 2010 whereby the licence issued to
the petitioner in respect of Light Diesel
Oil under the Uttar Pradesh High Speed
Diesel
Oil
and
Light
Diesel
Oil
(Maintenance
of
Supplies
and
Distribution) Order, 1981 has been
cancelled. Paragraph 9 of the Uttar
Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil and Light
Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and
Distribution) Order, 1981 provides as
follows:

"Appeal.
-
(1)
Any
person,
aggrieved by an order of the Licensing
Authority refusing to grant or renew a
licence, cancelling or suspending a
licence
or
forfeiting
the
security
deposited by the dealer under the
provisions of this Order may, within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of order by him, appeal to the Divisional
Commissioner concerned:

Provided
that
the
Divisional
Commissioner may entertain an appeal
after the expiry of the said period of
thirty days but within a period of sixty
days of the receipt of the order by such
person if he is satisfied that the appellant
was prevented by sufficient cause from
filing the appeal in time.

(2) No such appeal shall be disposed
of unless the aggrieved person has been
given a reasonable opportunity of stating
his case.

(3) Pending the disposal of the
appeal, the Divisional Commissioner
may stay the operation of the order
appealed against.

(4) Subject to decision in the appeal,
the order of the Licensing Authority or
the Collector, as the case may be, shall
be final."

4. In view of above quoted
provisions of paragraph 9 of the Uttar
Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil and Light
Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and
Distribution) Order, 1981, it is evident
that the petitioner has an alternative
remedy of filing an appeal before the
Divisional
Commissioner
concerned
against the aforesaid impugned order
dated
30th
July,
2010.
1 All] Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another V. State of U.P. and others
221

5. Having regard to the nature of
controversy in the present writ petition,
we are not inclined to exercise our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India
in
view
of
availability of alternative remedy to the
petitioner of filing appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner concerned.

6. We accordingly dismiss the writ
petition on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy of filing appeal before
the
Divisional
Commissioner
under
paragraph 9 of Uttar Pradesh High Speed
Diesel
Oil
and
Light
Diesel
Oil
(Maintenance
of
Supplies
and
Distribution) Order, 1981.

7. We may observe that in case the
petitioner files any such appeal within 30
days from today along with a certified
copy of this order, the appeal will be
entertained
by
the
Divisional
Commissioner concerned without raising
any
objection
on
the
ground
of
limitation.

8. In case such an appeal is filed
within
the
aforesaid
period,
the
Divisional Commissioner concerned will
proceed
to
decide
the
appeal
expeditiously, preferably within a period
of two months of the filing of such
appeal.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60573 of 2005

Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Thru' M.D. and another. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Thru' Min. of Labour and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rajesh D. Khare

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri M.K. Kushwaha
Sri Mahima Kushwaha
C.S.C.

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1997-Section
6
N-Termination
without
giving
retrenchment
compensation
even
workman success to prove the working
more than 240 days-there cannot be
reinstatement automatically-if there is
no
substantive
post-instate
of
reinstatement damage can be awarded -
pursuance of interim order working and
drawing salary-Rs.50,000/-towards back
wages-be treated compensation-without
refundable
of
salary-working
during
these period on basis of interim orderdirection of reinstatement not proper.

Held: Para 8

Moreover, it has been held by the
Supreme Court in several authorities
including the following that if the only
defect in the termination order of a
workman is non compliance of Section
25-F of Industrial Disputes Act (or 6-N of
U.P.I.D. Act), then it is not always
necessary to direct reinstatement and in
such situation award of consolidated
damages would be more appropriate
relief particularly when the employer is