Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27261 of 2018 Petitioner :- Aniruddha Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Kant Rai,Hari Om Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.R. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Petitioner before this Court is assailing the validity of order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Kaptanganj, Kushinagar, whereby, the Fair Price Shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur approving the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the show cause notice dated 21.11.2016, the detailed objection has been filed by the petitioner to the effect that at present, the petitioner is getting foodgrains for the Patra-Grihasthi for only 1453 units out of 1632 units, which has been allotted to the petitioner's fair price shop and for the months July and August 1506 units have been provided out of 1632 units. The said factual aspect has never been considered by the authority while proceeding in the matter and both the Authorities were misrepresented by the factual situation and substituted their own findings of fact, even the inquiry in question has been conducted ex-parte to the petitioner and at no point of time the report has been furnished to the petitioner and as such, the orders impugned are unsustainable and liable to be set aside being in teeth of Government Order dated 29.07.2004 as well as dictum of Full Bench judgement of this Court in Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (3) ADJ 659 (FB).
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend both the orders on the ground that once the register of the petitioner has been inspected, then it had been found that 1506 units of foodgrains have been shown to be distributed in the month of July and August, whereas, he has informed that he has received only 1453 units of foodgrains and as such, there was manoeuvring in the record and as such, the orders impugned are liable to be sustained.
Heard rival submission and perused the record.
This Court has the occasion to peruse the record in question and finds that so far as the show cause notice is concerned, the detailed objection has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner has taken a precise stand that so far as units are concerned, 1632 units have been attached to the fair price shop of petitioner, whereas, he has received only 1453 units but in the months of July and August, he has received 1506 units and the same have been accordingly distributed. Admittedly, the said fact has been mentioned while passing the orders impugned that petitioner has distributed 1506 units in the months July and August.
Once such is the factual situation, then it strikes in the mind of the Court that material aspect has not been properly gone through by the Authorities concerned and even the procedure, which has been so prescribed by the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Puran Singh (surpa) has not been followed properly and in most cursory manner, the orders impugned have been passed, which cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, both the orders impugned are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Kaptanganj, Kushinagar to have a revisit in the matter and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order keeping in mind the procedure prescribed in Government Order dated 29.07.204 as well as the law laid down in the case of Puran Singh (supra).
With these observations, the Writ Petition stands
allowed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 A. Pandey