Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 70279 of 2013 Petitioner :- Chhote Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.P. Gupta,Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeev Sisodia,Sanjay Kumar,Shashank Kumar
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Upon a complaint being made by certain villagers, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar. The petitioner's fair price shop licence was thereafter suspended vide order dated 12.2.2013 and a show cause notice was issued to him. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. Thereafter the order dated 15.3.2013 was passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal and when the appeal was also dismissed on 31.10.2013, the instant writ petition was filed.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after the show cause notice was issued, no place for enquiry was fixed. He further submitted that even no date or time was fixed for conducting the enquiry. Under such circumstances, he submits that the orders impugned were passed in utmost violation of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of this Court in Ajay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2018 (5) ADJ 301 and submits that since the enquiry was vitiated as no place, date or time was fixed for conducting the enquiry, the orders impugned in this petition are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered in its right perspective and, therefore, the orders may not be interfered with.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the orders impugned in the petition, the Court is of the view that after the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he ought to have been given an opportunity to lead evidence. The petitioner should also have been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had deposed against him. In the absence of any opportunity of hearing being afforded to the petitioner, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Under such circumstances, the order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanaura, District Amroha and the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad are set-aside. However, setting-aside the impugned orders would not mean automatic revival of the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate shall now conduct a fresh enquiry in pursuance of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and all other Government Orders and conclude the same within a period of three months. For a period of three months or till the conclusion of the enquiry, whichever is earlier, the present arrangement of distribution of the essential commodities shall continue.
With the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)