RAJENDRA SINGH DOHRE Vs. COMMISSIONER, KANPUR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.N. Verma learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State authorities. I have also perused the impugned orders dated 7 -5 -97 and 7 -11 -97 respectively passed by the Up Zila Adhikari Auraiya and the Divisional Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur. Although Sri J.N. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, prayed for time to file counter affidavit but in my opinion counter affidavit is not required for the reason disclosed herein after. A perusal of the appellate order dated 7 -11 -97 would indicate that the appellate Court failed to direct itself to the ground on which the agreement was cancelled by the Deputy Collector, Auraiya. Instead the appellate Court has tried to justify the order of cancellation of agreement relating to fair price shop executed in favour of the petitioner on a new ground that the petitioner had not submitted the requisite certificate. As an appellate Authority Division Commissioner ought to have addressed himself to the reason given in the order passed by the original authority. It is well settled that legality or otherwise of an order is to be tested on the basis of the reasons given in the order itself and not on any other reasons which may be submitted by any external means. Since non -submission of the requisite certificate was not the ground for cancellation of the agreement the Divisional Commissioner was not justified in maintaining the order of cancellation of agreement on that ground. In my opinion the impugned appellate order is not sustainable in law.

(2.) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7 -11 -97 is quashed. The Divisional Commissioner Kanpur is directed to readmit the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law after proper self direction to the grounds of cancellation as mentioned in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Auraiya.