Jai Pal Singh vs Commissioner,Food & Civil Supplies,U.P.Government,Lucknow & Ors.

Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 2842001 whereby the Finance Controller, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Lucknow has informed the petitioner that the Regional Food Controller, Meerut Region, has informed by different letters that an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/ has to be recovered from the petitioner whereas the total amount of gratuity is Rs. 1,35,036/. The aforesaid amount is adjusted towards the recovery and it is categorically stated in para 6 of the writ petition that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The reply of this para 6 of the writ petition is given in para 6 of the counteraffidavit wherein the respondents have not denied this fact. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is not correct to state in para 5 of the writ petition that this order was passed in conspiracy against the petitioner, in fact this order was passed in pursuance to the direction issued by the High Court issued in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47765 of 2000; Jai Pal Singh v. Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Government, Lucknow and others. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that it was not necessary to afford any opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 405 Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the reasons cannot be assigned after passing of an order by way of filing a counteraffidavit if the same is not incorporated in the order itself. There is no recital in the order impugned that this order is passed pursuant to the order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47765 of 2000.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 2842001 deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Since the impugned order is quashed on the ground of no opportunity, therefore, it will be open to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner.