Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56641 of 2013 Petitioner :- Dayanand Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Vi,Agni Pal Singh,Pratima Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tariq Maqbool Khan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the District Supply Officer, Maharajganj cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner and the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only because of an F.I.R. being lodged against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of committing irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. No independent enquiry was held with regard to contention of the petitioner that he had distributed the scheduled commodities in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. RaJ Kumari Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, 2011 (3) ADJ, 639 and the judgment in the case of Sudheer Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2017 4 ADJ, 238.
I have perused the orders impugned.
From a perusal of the order passed by the District Supply Officer, it is evident that one Uttam Kumar Chaturvedi s/o. Surya Narain Chaturvedi, r/o. Gram Panchayat Chiutahan had asked for certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with regard to distribution registers maintained by the licensee Dayanand Sharma.
In pursuance of such an application being made the relevant registers were called for from the licensee by the office of the District Supply Officer.
The licensee informed the District Supply Officer that the registers for the year 2009-10 had been lost. With regard to the same he had already filed an N.C.R. Before the P.S. Kothibhar on 13.04.2011.
Uttam Kumar Chaturvedi on the other hand informed the office of the District Supply Officer that such an explanation given by the petitioner was liable to be rejected as no such report has been filed at P.S. Kothibhar by the licensee.
The District Supply Officer after summoning the report from the P.S. Kothibhar on 25.06.2011 was informed that no report regarding loss of distribution registers for the year 2009-10 had been lodged by the petitioner.
On 22.03.2012 the petitioner was asked to submit a copy of the report allegedly lodged by him at P.S. Kothibhar but the petitioner failed to produce a copy of the report filed at P.S. Kothibhar.
The District Supply Officer thereafter assumed that the licensee had deliberately not produced the required registers only because he was indulging in irregularities of essential commodities. It was the duty of the licensee to submit all registers as was called for by the office in pursuance of the application under the Right to Information Act moved by Uttam Kumar Chaturvedi.
Accordingly, an F.I.R. under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 421 IPC in Case Crime No. 14 of 2012 was lodged by the office of the District Supply Officer.
It has come out from the orders impugned that against the lodging of the F.I.R., the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2012 which was dismissed by this Court on 27.03.2012.
The fair price shop license of the petitioner was thereafter suspended on 17.04.2012. Against the order dated 17.04.2012 the licensee filed an appeal being Appel No. 175/187/M 2012 in which the matter was remanded to the District Supply Officer to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, if not already passed.
The petitioner was directed by the District Supply Officer vide his order dated 07.08.2012 to submit a fresh explanation but the petitioner failed to do so. Again on 05.11.2012 the petitioner was given a final notice to produce all evidence. The petitioner could not produce the evidence but he did submit an explanation saying that the order of suspension was bad in law and Uttam Kumar Singh was not a resident of his village and there was no ration card issued to him which was attached to the fair price shop of the petitioner. He also submitted that he had not deliberately withheld the registers which were called for by the District Supply Officer. He mentioned the filing of Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2012 for quashing of the first information report.
The petitioner in his explanation had also submitted that the Supply Inspector on 21.08.2011 had submitted a report in favour of the petitioner that the villagers had no complaint against the petitioner.
It appears that such explanation was not considered at all by the District Supply Officer and he has passed the impugned order saying that since this Court had refused to interfere in Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2012 in favour of the petitioner, he does not deserve to continue with the license.
I have perused the order of the Appellate Authority which has more or less reiterated the facts as mentioned in the order of the District Supply Officer and rejected the appeal of the petitioner on 14.08.2013.
The learned Standing Counsel has pointed out from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was given opportunity and an independent enquiry was conducted but the petitioner failed to submit any satisfactory explanation, therefore, the license of the petitioner was cancelled.
This Court, having perused the orders impugned, finds that no specific allegation of irregularity by any named villager has been mentioned in the show-cause notice to the petitioner or in the impugned order itself. The only allegation against the petitioner is that on an application under the Right to Information Act filed by Uttam Kumar Singh, the petitioner did not furnish copies of registers for the year 2009-10. This cannot be a ground for cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner. There was no complaint by villagers regarding any irregularity in distribution. No independent enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Government Order dated 29.07.2002.
The orders impugned are vitiated in law and hence set-aside. The license of the petitioner shall be restored forthwith by the Licensing Authority.
The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/directions made herein above.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 VR