NABABUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFFIDAVIT filed by the learned Standing Counsel be placed on record.

(2.) HEARD Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the show cause notice dated 30.8.2005, though it is mentioned that on the receipt pf the complaint dated 12.8.2005 by the villagers an enquiry was made by the Regional Supply Officer in which alleged irregularities mentioned in the show cause notice were found, but no such enquiry has been made and the same is not on record. He submitted that in the cancellation order, though there is mention of suspension order No. 938 dated August, 2005, but on record there is no suspension order. He submitted that perusal of the record reveals that some enquiry report was submitted by the Inspector on 26th September, 2005 much after the show cause notice and after passing of the cancellation order. The said enquiry report is Annexure-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. He submitted that as per the Government order dated 29th July, 2004, it was mandatory to make preliminary enquiry on the receipt of the complaint before suspension of the agreement making allegation on the basis of such enquiry report why the agreement may not be cancelled. While in the present case, there is no enquiry report on record. Therefore, the cancellation order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is arbitrary and abuse of power and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Division Bench decisions in the case of Pramod Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (1) EFR 159; M/s. Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (19) LCD 513 and the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P, 2008 (26) LCD 891.