0

Any certain irregularities allegedly committed by any person, the fair licence of the person Will be made as a subject matter of an inquiry: High Court Of Uttarakhand

The illegalities committed by respondent No.7 in collusion with officials of the Supplies Department, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA,  in the matter [WPMS No.1876 of 2021].

Respondent No.7, was a fair price shop licence holder of Village Kishanpur, Jamalpur, District Haridwar. The subject matter of an inquiry came into action because of the irregularities allegedly committed by respondent No.7. The petitioner contends that the proceedings, which are being contemplated against respondent No.7, are in contravention to the proceedings, as contemplated under the Government Order dated 14.08.2013.

The petitioner has filed this writ of mandamus, with the following reliefs:-

  • Directing the respondents to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry regarding the illegalities and irregularities being committed by respondent No.7.
  • Issue a writ order like mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to take suitable action on the complaint.

They also mentioned that, if the status of the petitioner is taken into consideration, it has been argued by the Counsel, that the petitioner is a resident of the Village, and is one of the poorest person, who can maintain a writ petition for a direction for holding a fair inquiry under the premonition as if the inquiry would not be concluded following the law.

The writ petition looks into the nature of relief, which has been preferred, would not fall within the ambit of the writs of mandamus, and the circumstances under which, it could be issued, because there is no apparent breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner nor there is any infringement of his right, In fact, the entire action, which has been taken against the respondent No.7, is qua against the other respondents of the writ petition.

The petitioner individually can be told that he has got no right as such to seek a writ of mandamus.

The Hon’ble Court perused the facts,-“It thought that that the inquiry contemplated against respondent No.7, would is expected to be conducted by the Competent Authority following the law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira B.S.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat