# Reeta Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1233
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-02
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reeta-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44649
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 16(2) -
Designation of Senior Advocates Rules,
2018 - notification u/s 16(2) -Designation
of Senior Advocates-conferment of status
of 'Senior Advocate' is not a matter of

## Text

3 All. Reeta Singh Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
1233
(2019)11ILR A1233

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No.- 21342 of 2019

Reeta Singh Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava

A. Cancellation - Fair price shop - No
independent enquiry after suspension -
Enquiry before passing of suspension
order is not sufficient enquiry - When
stigma is cast and charges have been
leveled, it became imperative to hear
petitioner in a proper enquiry. (Para 8 & 9)

B. Constitution of India - Articles 14 and
226 - Maintainability of writ - Alternative
remedy - No enquiry - Gross violation of
principle of natural justice - No useful
purpose
be
served
by
relegating
petitioner to avail alternative remedy of
appeal. (Para 9)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. The petitioner's Fair Price Shop
situate in Village - Tanda Kalan, Block -
Chahaniyan, Tehsil - Sakaldiha, District -
Chandauli, was suspended on 4.4.2019.
Thereafter on 16.4.2019, the petitioner
denied the charges and filed her reply. On
4.6.2019, the licence to run the Fair Price
Shop was cancelled. Aggrieved thereof,
the petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition.

2. The petitioner has submitted that
initially when the order of suspension was
passed there was enquiry contemplated in
it and subsequently thereafter no fresh
charges were issued and no enquiry as is
contemplated under the Government
Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014
was undergone.

3. Learned Standing Counsel, in
reply, however, submitted that prior to the
issuing of the suspension order, notices
were issued and the charges were known
to the petitioner. He submits that these
charges were issued on 18.2.2019 and
12.3.2019.

4. Learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that when the petitioner was
appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer it was
a contract between the State and the Fair
Price Shop Dealer and as per the paragraph
no. 15 of the agreement, the contract would
be terminated at any time without giving any
reason. Learned Standing Counsel pointed
out to Clause 15 of the agreement between
the Government and the Fair Price Shop
Licencee which is being reproduced here as
under:-

"ftyk eftLVasV @ ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh
1⁄4vkiwfrZ1⁄2] mi&ftykf/kdkjh rFkk xzke lHkk dks bl]
vuqcU/k&i= dks fdlh le; fcuk dkj.k crk, gq,
lekIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA"

5. Learned Standing Counsel only
pointed out to the instructions which had
been received by him and did not file any
counter affidavit.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent
no.
6
who
was
the
1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant in the case stated that since
the charges which were made against the
petitioner were clear from the charge
sheet itself, no further enquiry was
required.

7. Upon hearing the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the learned Standing
Counsel
and
Sri
Dhirendra
Kumar
Srivastava appearing for the respondent
no. 6, this Court is of the definite view
that the order impugned cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.

8. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 4.6.2019 definitely shows that no
independent enquiry was ever conducted
after the suspension order dated 4.4.2019
was passed. The enquiry which is on the
record appears to be put on the basis of
the charges and the replies which were
there on the record before the suspension
order was passed. A perusal of the order
dated 4.6.2019 also shows that the
enquiry conducted on 2.1.2019 by the
Supply Inspector was only depended
upon by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil
- Sakaldiha.

9. Having found that the enquiry
was not done in compliance of the order
dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014, this
Court is of the view that no useful
purpose would be served by relegating the
petitioner to file an appeal when no
enquiry whatsoever was undergone. There
was
definitely
a
gross-violation
of
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
contention of
the
learned
Standing
Counsel that as per the Clause 15 of the
agreement the contract could have been
terminated without any show cause notice
is also not tenable. Had there been no
stigma or allegation against the petitioner
and
contract
had
been
terminated
simplicitor then no enquiry was required.
However, when a stigma was being cast
upon the petitioner and charges were
being levelled then it becomes imperative
that the petitioner should have been heard
in a proper enquiry.

10. Under such circumstances, the
order dated 4.6.2019 and the order dated
4.4.2019 cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law and, thus, the same are quashed.

11. The writ petition is allowed.

12. The petitioner's Fair Price Shop
Licence would be restored and the shop
which the petitioner was running would
also be restored to her.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1234

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ C No. 21947 of 2019

Sunil Kumar Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature At Allahabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra

A. Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 16(2) -
Designation of Senior Advocates Rules,
2018 - notification u/s 16(2) -Designation
of Senior Advocates-conferment of status
of 'Senior Advocate' is not a matter of