Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
On the basis of policy decision license/ agreement/ dealership to run Fair Price Shop granted to the petitioner was cancelled by order of D.M. Bijnore through order dated 22.08.1998, Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. There is reference of G.O. dated 19.02.1992 in the said order. Against the said order, petitioner filed Appeal No. 24 of 2005-06. The Commissioner, Moradabad Div., Moradabad dismissed the appeal on 29.05.2006, hence this writ petition.
In this writ petition stay order was granted on 25.08.2006.
In the impugned order by the Commissioner, Moradabad Div., Moradabad, it is categorically mentioned that against the petitioner there is absolutely no allegation of any irregularity in distribution of essential commodities. In the said order, reference has also been made to a judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2005 given in writ petition No. 8471 of 2001, Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P., copy of the said judgment is Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. It has further been mentioned in the impugned order that on 07.04.1993, policy decision was taken to grant one time agreement and screening committee was established in each district to examine the case of existing licensees/dealers. In respect of petitioner after mentioning that there was absolutely nothing adverse against him and no complaint of irregularity was filed by any one it was held that financial condition of petitioner was not much good. However, it is not mentioned as to whether he failed to lift quota in any month due to weakness of financial condition. If petitioner lifted quota regularly and there was no complaint against him in respect of distribution of essential commodities then the license should have been renewed. Very rich people are not supposed to run fair price shops unless they intend to do black marketing. In any case Government cannot grant any benefit merely on the basis of wealth. The duty of the Government is to do social justice to those persons who are not wealthy. The reasoning given in the impugned orders is totally perverse and in the reverse direction.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Impugned orders are set-aside.
Order Date :- 6.12.2012 S.A.A.Rizvi