Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48278 of 2013 Petitioner :- Dwarika Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.P.S. Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Petitioner before this Court is assailing the validity of order dated 05.12.2012 passed by District Supply Officer, District Ghazipur/third respondent as well as the order dated 03.08.2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi/second respondent.
It appears that on some complaint, enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 13.08.2012 and based on the same, the license of the petitioner's fair price shop was suspended on 21.08.2012 levelling 11 charges upon the petitioner and response has been asked for within 15 days. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 15.09.2012 and finally, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled by order impugned dated 05.12.2012. The said order has been challenged by preferring Appeal no.34/2012, which was also dismissed by order dated 03.08.2013 passed by the second respondent.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any proper enquiry, the order of suspension has been passed and at the time of spot inspection, the shop in question was closed on account of illness of petitioner and the board and other details were put inside the shop and as such the same is 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). He further submits that total 393 cards holders are attached with petitioner's fair price shop but only 2393 Kg. of wheat were sanctioned every month for distribution, which was distributed to the 240 A.P.L. card holders to the tune of 10 kg. per card resulting in 154 card holders left every month. Submission has also been made that some of the card holders had not lifted up the essential commodities and the same is lying with the petitioner and even the statements of B.P.L. and A.P.L. and Untyoday Card Holders have not been taken before passing the order of cancellation and as such, the orders impugned cannot sustain and the same are liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection that so far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is unfounded on the ground that in most cursory manner, the petitioner has responded the show cause notice and vague and evasive averment has been made therein, which were again been tested by the Inspecting team and based on the report so submitted by the Inspecting Team, the Authority has proceeded to cancel the fair price shop license of the petitioner and the same has also been approved by the Appellate Authority, even an FIR has also been lodged against the petitioner wherein, chargehseet has been filed by the police authority. In this backdrop, he submits that once concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Authorities, then there is no reason or occasion to substitute the finding recorded by both the authorities below and as such, no interference is required in the matter.
Heard rival submission and perused the record.
This Court has the occasion to peruse the record in question and finds that based on the complaints made by certain villagers, an inspection team was constituted for carrying out spot inspection and the report was submitted on 13.08.2012. Thereafter the license of the petitioner has been suspended levelling 11 charges consisting of allegation of maldistribution and charging higher rates. The said report has been supported by the statement of complainants and other villagers. Even an FIR has also been lodged under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act on 14.08.2012 bearing Case Crime no.830/2012 P.S. Birnon, Gazipur, wherein, chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted his reply denying all the allegations. It appears that before passing the order of cancellation dated 05.12.2012, an Inspecting Team was constituted to have a look into the reply submitted by the petitioner and verify the same with the original record. The said team has submitted its report on 17.11.2012 holding the petitioner guilty of malfunctioning in distribution, black marketing and making of fake signatures of the APL card holders in the sale register.
Record in question also reflects that 21 APL cardholders have given statement before the inspecting team that petitioner is charging higher rates of kerosene oil and at no point of time, wheat has ever been distributed to them and the same was supported by the Gram Pradhan and member of the Gram Sabha. The same has been replied by the petitioner in vague and evasive manner by averring that only 2393 Kg. of wheat were sanctioned every month for distribution, which was distributed to the 240 A.P.L. card holders to the tune of 10 kg. per card resulting in 154 card holders left every month, whereas, the inspection team has found that no distribution has been done by the petitioner and the sale register was maintained by making fake signatures. The similar situation also reveals in distribution of sugar also. It appears that various charges of non distribution of essential commodities have been levelled against the petitioner by the attached card holders of nearby fair price shop. The same was vaguely responded by the petitioner to the effect that distribution has been done to the said card holders but on account of non availability of cards, entry could not be made. The same was inspected by the team and it was found that no such distribution has been made and forge entries were made in the sale register.
Once such is the factual situation that on two occasions enquiry was got conducted and the reply submitted by the petitioner was also taken into account and both the Inspection Team on the basis of verification of documents and statement submitted by the villagers found the petitioner guilty of all the allegations levelled against him and even in the criminal proceeding, the chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner and in this backdrop, both the Authorities have proceeded to reject the claim set up by the petitioner, then this Court does not found any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned and the law laid down in Puran Singh (supra) would also not apply in the present matter as proper opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner and as such, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 A. Pandey