Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1393 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bhagirath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the second respondent, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur, by which the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The request has also been made for issuing direction to the respondents to resume the supply of the petitioner's fair price shop forthwith.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was a fair price shop agent of village Bagadkha, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur. On certain complaint, proceeding of cancellation of the licence was initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him on 9.1.2018 to which he had submitted a detailed reply, denying the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended on 15.3.2018 and he again filed detailed reply against the suspension order alongwith the affidavits of the card holders. The suspension order was assailed by the petitioner by preferring Writ C No.28387 of 2018 (Bhagirath vs. State of UP and another) and the same was dismissed on 5.9.2018 asking the authority concerned to proceed on the merits of the case after considering the explanation of the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 the Licencing Authority has cancelled the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. At no point of time any enquiry was conducted by the respondents in consonance with the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and the Full Bench of this Court in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 947. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgements and orders of this Court passed in Writ C No.35435 of 2018 (Ravendra Singh Rawat vs. State of UP and 2 others) decided on 25.10.2018; Writ C No.29150 of 2018 (Smt.
Manju Devi vs. State of UP and 2 others) decided on 28.8.2018 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34351 of 2016 (Mahendra Singh vs. State of UP and another) decided on 5.8.2016. He also submits that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that against the impugned order the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division and once the statutory forum is available to the petitioner he can very well avail the same and take all the grounds, which have been taken in the present writ petition, before the appellate authority and the appellate authority on the basis of such claim set up by the petitioner can decide the matter. He also very fairly states that the objection so raised by the petitioner has substance and the matter may be relegated back to the competent authority to revisit in the matter after providing opportunity of hearing in accordance with the Government order dated 29.7.2004.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the vague and evasive allegations are levelled against the petitioner and merely on these allegations the impugned order has been passed, which is in teeth of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra). A bare perusal of the impugned order this much is also clearly reflected that at no point of time the petitioner has been heard in the present matter. The authority concerned has not applied his own mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner and he has passed the order impugned without application of mind. The order must be passed after recording reason and in absence of any such reason, the order is liable to be quashed. The Court has also gone through the aforesaid judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the writ petitions were allowed and the orders were set aside on the ground that once the authority is empowered to exercise quasi-judicial power then that power has to be exercised in judicial way by passing the reasoned speaking order after considering the material available on record independently and he cannot depend his decision upon the assessment made by any other authority.
Therefore, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgements, the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 cannot sustain and the same is set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to decide it afresh strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 RKP