Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
(Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018) (Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 2 of 2018) Heard.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay condoned.
Delay Condonation application and recall application are allowed. Order dated 8.12.2011 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.
(Order on writ petition) Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
The petitioners had sought mandamus directing respondents to decide reply/representation dated 10.5.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, he died during pendency of this petition and due to his death his licence of fair price shop has come to an end. If that be so, the petition is dismissed qua petitioner no. 3.
He submits that surviving petitioners were granted license of fair price shop and adhering all conditions in accordance with law. On 21.3.2005, petitioners have deposited money for release of food grains but due to negligence of respondent no. 5, goods / food grains could not be released within time to which petitioners made complaint before respondent no. 2 and 3 on 1.4.2005 mentioning therein that respondent no. 5 instead of releasing whole food grains only released sugar, however made full entry in the log book as well as stock issuing register, although full payment was made by the petitioners. He submits that before deciding the complaint made by the petitioners dated 1.4.2005, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned notice dated 23.4.2005, suspending the licences of the petitioners pursuant thereto the petitioners moved representation dated 10.5.2005 before the competent authority, which is pending.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that there was a complaint against petitioners pursuant thereto an inquiry was conducted on 4/5.4.2005 by a team constituted by District Magistrate in which godowns as well as stock registers were physically inspected wherein various discrepancies were found, therefore, licences of the petitioners were suspended. The inquiry report also reveals that the petitioners were indulging in black marketing therefore, order of suspension has rightly been passed.
We have perused the records.
On perusal of impugned order (Annexure no. 3), it reveals that during inquiry various discrepancies were found which led to the conclusion that petitioners were indulging in black marketing. The said findings have not been challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition. Although initially this Court by order dated 21.7.2005 stayed the impugned order and revoked the suspension of their licences but in the meantime, the writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 8.12.2011 and interim order was vacated. Since then more than 09 years have been passed as such no good ground is made out to restore the licence of fair price shops in favour of petitioners.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Rahul Dwivedi/-