Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 28th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 21956 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
AMARPAL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JAGBANDHAN SINGH
CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SALESMAN GOVT. FAIR PRICE SHOP UPANI, JANPAD
PANCHAY
AT SIDHI, R/O VILLAGE JAMODI KHURD,
TEHSIL GOPAD BANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHY
A
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIRUDH SINGH BAGHEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE
STATE
OF
MADHY
A
PRADESH
THROUGH
SECRETARY
FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAY
A, V
ALLABH BHA
W
AN BHOPAL (MADHY
A
PRADESH)
2.
COLLECTOR S I D H I , DISTRICT
SIDHI
(MADHY
A
PRADESH)
3.
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER GOPAD BANAS, TEHSIL
GOPAD BANAS, DISTRICT SIDDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
ASSISTANT SUPPLY
OFFICER SIDHI, FOOD CIVIL
SUPPLIES
DEPARTMENT, SIDHI,
DISTRICT
SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5.
SEW
A SAHAKARI SAMITI MARY
ADIT THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN AMARW
AH DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHY
A
PRADESH)
6.
ABHISHEK SINGH S/O SHRI AMARPAL SINGH R/O
VILLAGE JAMODI KHURD, TEHSIL GOPAD BANAS,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SHARMA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Anirudha Singh Baghel,Advocate General
ORDER
With the consent, finally heard.
The challenge mounted in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 27.6.2022 (Annexure P/4) whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) Gopad Banas, Tehsil Gopad Banas, District Sidhi has removed the petitioner/salesman of a shop, and also the order dated 05.9.2022 (Annexure P/5) whereby the Collector has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
The singular point raised by Shri Baghel 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.) , WP. 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 16 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.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Amit Sharma, Government Advocate. He also placed reliance on the language employed in Clause 16(7) aforesaid.
I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
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 (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) ]
- I find substance in the argument of Shri Baghel 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 orders dated 27.6.2022 (Annexure P/4) and 05.9.2022 (Annexure P/5) are 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.
- The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
- (NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE ak
