HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 40630 of 2018 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the State- respondents. 2. Petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.01.2018 passed by Additional District Magistrate Law and Order/District Complaint Redressal Officer, Mathura. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to not to harass the petitioner in peacefully conducting his business." 3. The matter was taken up on 18.09.2025, and this Court on 18.09.2025 passed the following order:- "Order on order sheet In view of office report dated 21.10.2024 the service of notice upon respondent no.2 is deemed sufficient. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rama Goel Bansal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Sri Dau Ji Indian Oil .....Petitioner(s) Additional District Magistrate Law And Order/ District Complaint Redressal Officer And Another .....Respondent(s) 2. This Court on 14.12.2018 passed the following order:- "Heard Smt. Rama Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent no. 1. The petitioner is running a petrol pump. A complaint was made by the respondent no. 2 before the respondent no. 1 alleging that he was taking petrol from the petitioner since 2015 and that there is arrears of Rs. 32 lakhs on the petrol pump which the petitioner is not paying to the respondent no. 2. On this complaint the impugned order has been passed. An enquiry is stated to have been initiated in the matter and we find that the A.D.M. (Law and Order)/District Complaint Redressal Officer, Mathura has far exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner may also be guilty of adulteration, concealment of G.S.T. , income tax and is involved in distribution of less petrol and is also responsible for violation of guide lines and instructions of the fire department and pollution department. We fail to understand as to how the A.D.M. (Law and Order) has come to on these conclusion though the matter before him was only with regard to non payment of Rs.32 lakhs allegedly by the respondent no. 2. Primafacie we are of the view that the A.D.M. (Law and Order), Mathura has far exceeded his jurisdiction and made irresponsible observations against the petitioner. We therefore stay the operation of the order dated 5.11.2018. We further direct that the respondent no. 3-Ramesh Chand, Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order), Mathura shall file his personal affidavit explaining as to why structure may not be passed against him and why a direction be not issued to the State Government for recording an adverse remarks in his service record. Learned standing counsel may also file counter affidavit by the next date. List on 11.1.2019. " 3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the respondent no.3 Ramesh Chand, Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order), Mathura has filed a personal affidavit dated 17.01.2019. 4. We have perused the personal affidavit of respondent no.3. We are of the prima facie view that he could not entertain a private complaint of respondent no.2-Y.S. Ram Krishna, Senior Project Manager Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited, who is consumer of petroleum product and alleges that he has made an advance payment of Rs. 32 lakhs WRIC No. 40630 of 2018 2 to the petitioner and the petitioner has not paid the same. 5. The dispute is essentially a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2 and the remedy to the respondent no.2 is to file a suit for recovery of money. The notices have been issued to the respondent no.2 and this Court has held the service of notice upon respondent no.2 confirmed by the order passed today. 6. Since this Court has directed in its order dated 14.12.2018 that it is a fit case where an explanation be called from the respondent no.3 and a direction be issued to the State Government for recording an adverse entry against the petitioner, in such view of the fact, we before passing any order deem appropriate to summon respondent no.3 to seek an explanation from him as to under which provision of law he could pass such an order. We may also note that the personal affidavit filed by respondent no.3 reflects that it has been filed very casually and the personal affidavit does not reflect that the respondent no.3 had any remorse in passing such an illegal order. 7. List on 25.09.2025. On which date, respondent no.3 Ramesh Chand, Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order), Mathura shall remain present before this Court to show cause why the structure be not passed against him and a direction be not issued to State Government to enter adverse remark in the service book of the petitioner. " 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.09.2025, respondent no.3 Ramesh Chand, Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order), Mathura has appeared in person and has filed personal affidavit wherein in paragraph nos.6 to 8 he has stated that it was the bonafide mistake. 5. In such view of the fact, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 is not sustainable in law and is accordingly, set aside. 6. Thus, the writ petition is allowed subject to observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. September 25, 2025 Mohit WRIC No. 40630 of 2018 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad