# Mubeen Khan v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-29
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 6211 of 2016
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mubeen-khan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43493
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation by the CBI. The powers of the Court are circumscribed and can be exercised
only if there is sufficient material to do so as per the ratio in the cases indicated above. Two
other judgments may be mentioned where the Supreme Court has traversed the law relating
to the powers of the High Court in proceeding to order for a CBI enquiry, namely, Bharati
Tamang versus Union of India and others [(2013) 15 SCC 578] and Mithilesh Kumar
Singh versus State of Rajasthan and others [(2015) 9 SCC 795]. The said issue has also
been dealt with in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pooja Pal versus
Union of India and others [JT 2016 (1) SC 430].

12. In the absence of any proper material on record, the second relief prayed for also
cannot be considered in the wake of lack of essentials. The writ petition sans merit and is
hereby rejected. The dismissal of this petition will however not prejudice or curtail the right
of any aggrieved person to claim such relief about investigation nor will it impede the
powers of the competent Court to do so if necessary in view of the law enunciated by the
apex Court and referred to here-in-above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 6211 of 2016

Mubeen Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Manoj Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., Jai Kumar

HEADNOTE:

This Public Interest Litigation challenges the continuance of a fair price shop license by respondent
No.5 in village Adhipur, a hamlet of Gram Sabha Dashrathpur, following the election of his wife. The
petitioner contended that the license-holder was disqualified under Government orders dated
03.05.1999, 18.07.2002, and 17.05.2010. The Court observed that the matter relates to enforcement
of statutory eligibility provisions for holding fair price shop licenses. Citing the Full Bench judgment in
Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, [(2014) 1 UPLBEC 379], the Court emphasized that the
Gram Pradhan and the license-holder must be given notice before passing any order. The writ petition
was disposed of directing the competent authority to act in accordance with the Government orders
within a stipulated time.

ORDER:
3 All. Mubeen Khan Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
627

The petitioner, a resident of village Adhipur, a hamlet of Gram Sabha Dashrathpur, has filed this Public
Interest Litigation alleging that respondent No.5, a fair price shop license holder in the said Gram
Panchayat, stands disqualified from continuing to hold the license under the Government orders dated
03.05.1999, 18.07.2002, and 17.05.2010. The petitioner contends that following the election of the
wife of respondent No.5, he is ineligible to retain the license. An application to this effect had already
been moved before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Mahsi, District Bahraich.

Observations and Directions:

The petition raises a matter concerning the enforcement of government orders regulating the eligibility
for holding fair price shop licenses.
Considering the submissions, the Court directs respondent No.3 to take appropriate action in
accordance with the relevant Government orders.
The Gram Pradhan and respondent No.5 are to be given notice before passing any order.
A certified copy of this order is to be presented to respondent No.3 for compliance.
Reference is made to the Full Bench judgment in Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. & Others,
[(2014) 1 UPLBEC 379], decided on 09.12.2013, which deals with similar issues.

Conclusion:

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. The respondent authorities are to ensure
compliance within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
&
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation being a
resident of village Adhipur which is a Majra (hamlet) of Gram Sabha Dashrathpur. The
allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent No.5, who is a fair price shop license
holder of the said Gram Panchayat, now stands disqualified from continuing to hold such
license keeping in view the Government order dated 03.05.1999 read with Government
order dated 18.07.2002 and 17.05.2010 which makes a clear provision to that effect.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that with the election of the wife of the respondent
No.5, he cannot now continue with the license and an application to that effect has been
moved before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Mahsi, district Bahraich for appropriate
action in the matter.

4. We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised and we direct the respondent
No.3 to take appropriate steps for passing an order in accordance with the relevant
Government orders within six weeks of the date of presentation of a certified copy of this
order after putting the Gram Pradhan and the respondent No.5 both, to notice. We may also
put on record that this issue has also been dealt with in the Full Bench judgment in the case
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in [(2014) 1 UPLBEC 379],
decided on 09.12.2013.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Special Appeal Defective NO. - 60 OF 2016

State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Jagroop Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Piyush Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vijay Gautam

Disciplinary Proceedings - Transfer of police person

nel from the Traffic Police upon attainment of the age of 50 years in the case of Head Constables and
45 years in the case of Constables, in accordance with the governing administrative policy.

Procedure under Rule - Transfer effected in terms of the administrative policy dated 06.06.2001
and the consequential transfer order dated 25.05.2015 issued by the competent authority.

Penal Sections - Not applicable, the matter pertaining exclusively to service jurisprudence.

List of Cases Cited -

Vishnu Kant Jha and Others vs. State of U.P.;
Pati Ram Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P.;
Surya Nath Singh and Others vs. State of U.P.;
Birendra Singh vs. State of U.P.

Head Note - Transfer of police personnel from the Traffic Police upon attainment of the prescribed
age of 50 years in respect of Head Constables and 45 years in respect of Constables, in furtherance of
a duly formulated administrative policy, is legally valid. Judicial interference in matters of internal
administration is impermissible in the absence of manifest illegality. The order of the learned Single
Judge interfering with the transfer was held to be unsustainable in law.

Facts -