w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Shyam Raj Cold Storage And Ice Factory v/s State Of Uttar Pradesh

    Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7675 of 2011
    Decided On, 19 August 2011
    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA
    For the Appearing Parties: Rajesh Kumar Singh, Amitabh Kumar, T.N. Gupta, H.P. Srivastava, I.H. Faruqi, Advocates.


Judgment Text
1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1,2,3,4 and 9; Sri T. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 and Sri I. H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the opposite parties No. 7 and 8.

2. WITH the consent of parties' counsel, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the compensation awarded by the licensing authority, against which an appeal under Section 36 of the Act has been filed before the Tribunal but on account of lack of Corum, the appeal could not be taken up for the purpose of admission and interim relief.

It has been submitted by Sri T. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 that since the appeal has been filed at belated stage, no order staying the payment of compensation may be passed by this Hon'ble Court even by the Tribunal.

3. DURING the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that since the Corum of the Tribunal is not complete and the State Government as well as Central Government has failed to discharge the statutory obligation under the UP. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (in short 'Act'), this Court has ample power to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to impart justice to the persons who are being suffered by the inaction of the State Government and Central Government. It is submitted that since last six months, the Central Government has failed to appoint Chairman of the Tribunal and the State Government also failed to appoint second member of the Tribunal. The Central Government and the State Government failed to discharge the statutory obligation, more so, when the controversy relates to the Tribunal for discharging his obligation as appellate authority for payment of compensation to the farmers of the State on account of decaying and damage of potatoes in the cold storages. Keeping in view the matter pending and the inordinate delay in filling vacancy, may cause irreparable loss and injury to the farmers of the State, it shall be appropriate for the State and Central Government to discharge their obligation and to make the Tribunal functional within a reasonable period i.e. before the retirement of the incumbent. Sri I. H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that Central Government as well as the State Government shall take necessary steps to fulfill their obligation under the Act. Sections 35 and 36 of Chapter VII of the Act deals with Constitution of Tribunal, which is reproduced as under: 35. Constitution of Tribunal.? There shall be a Tribunal consisting of the following members, namely?

(a) the Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Government of India, who shall be the Charmian. (b) the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Uttar Pradesh or an officer of his department nominated by him not below the rank of Joint Legal Remembrancer. (c) the Secretary to the Government in the Agriculture Department or an officer of that department nominated by him not below the rank of Joint Secretary.

36. Appeal.? Any person aggrieved by an order of the Licensing Officer refusing to grant a license under sub-section (2) of Section 6, or refusing to renew it under sub-section (2) of Section 7 or suspending or cancelling it under sub-section (1) or Section 8, or refusing permission under Section 9, or deciding a dispute referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 14 or in subsection (1) of Section 25, may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within thirty days from the date of communication of such order, and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final.

4. IT has been submitted that there is no Chairman since long to fulfill the Corum of Tribunal. Only one Member is working and the State Government has also to appoint additional one more Member to make the Corum of the Tribunal complete. Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the Director, Horticulture, has also written a letter to Government to nominate a member for the Tribunal.

In view of above, we direct the Central Government as well as State Government to fulfill the Corum of the Tribunal and discharge their respective statutory obligations under the Act to appoint a Chairman of the Tribunal and Member expeditiously say within a period of six weeks from today. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as the Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate this order immediately.

By an interim order dated 8.8.2011, we have stayed the recovery proceedings subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Since the Tribunal is not functional and the litigant may suffer, this Court has ample power to secure the interest of both sides by making an interim arrangement.

5. ACCORDINGLY, without entering into the merits of the case, it is provided that the Tribunal shall take up the appeal with regard to admission as well as for interim relief expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order. The petitioner shall furnish a certified copy of the present order to the Tribunal within a week from today. As and when the Government appoint other Member and the Chairman of the Tribunal or the Corum is c

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
omplete, the petitioner's case shall be taken on priority basis subject to payment of Rs. 1,50,000.00 (75,000.00 each to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6) with the Tribunal within a period of two weeks, which shall be subject to the further orders passed by the Tribunal. Further recovery proceedings shall remain stayed for a period of four months or till the disposal of the application for stay. It shall be open for the Tribunal to pass appropriate order while deciding the controversy on merit taking into account the payment of Rs. 1,50,000.00. 6. SUBJECT to above, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
O R