Madhya Pradesh High Court
Puspendra Singh Rajpoot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 14 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 28769 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PUSPENDRA SINGH RAJPOOT S/O SHRI MAHRAJ SINGH
RAJPOOT, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SALESMAN R/O WARD No.5, CIVIL LINE ROAD OF
RAJPOOT AGRAWAL HOTAL TEHSIL AND DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VISHNU CHANDRA DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH).
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH).
3. PRATMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI
MYDT. BAMHORE BANNAD, DISTRICT SAGAR
THROUGH THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.P. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The challenge mounted in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby the learned Sub-Divisional officer has Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 12/15/2022 11:29:00 AM 2 removed the petitioner/salesman of a shop.
2. The singular point raised by counsel for the petitioner is founded upon Clause 16(7) of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which was interpreted by this Court in WP. No.10944/15 (Bindravan Yadav. vs. State of M.P.), W P . No.19591/15 (Dinendra Kumar Pandey vs. Commissioner Rewa) and WP. No.26823/18 (Kailash Pateria vs. State of M.P.). It is argued that as per Sub-clause (7) of Clause 1 6 aforesaid, the power vested with the Shop Allotting Authority to direct institute concerned to remove the salesman whereas in the instant case the said authority himself has removed the salesman, which is wholly impermissible.
3. Prayer is opposed by Government Advocate appearing for the State. He also placed reliance on the language employed in Clause 16(7) aforesaid.
4. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
5. This is settled in law that if a statute prescribes a thing to be done in the particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden. [See AIR 1959 SC 93 (Baru Ram vs. Prasanni), (2002) 1 SCC 633 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 12/15/2022 11:29:00 AM 3 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala)and judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 690 (Satyanjay Tripathi and Another Vs. Banarsi Devi)].
6. I find substance in the argument that it was not open to the Shop Allotting Authority himself to remove the salesman. At best, he could have directed the institute to remove the shopkeeper. For this reason alone, the order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. As held in the case of Kailash Pateria (supra), liberty is reserved to the Competent Authority to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. The petition is disposed off without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE vkt Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 12/15/2022 11:29:00 AM