Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 52853 of 2017 Petitioner :- Fareed Raza Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
This writ petition has been filed against the order of the District Supply Officer, District - Rampur, dated 20.2.2015 and the order of the Commissioner dated 3.10.2017.
After an inspection was made on 4.6.2014 by the Supply Inspector alongwith the Tehsildar, the petitioner's licence was suspended on 19.6.2014 and, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him on 26.6.2014. Six charges were alleged against the petitioner. In addition to the enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner, a First Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner on 4.6.2014. The petitioner on 4.7.2014 replied to the charges. Thereafter, an order cancelling the licence to run the Fair Price Shop was passed by the District Supply Officer on 20.2.2015. Thereafter, the appeal which was filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2017. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the reply was submitted by the petitioner, no enquiry as is contemplated in the Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014 was undergone. A date, place and time ought to have been fixed for the enquiry and, thereafter, on the date fixed, the petitioner should have been allowed to produce is own witnesses and should have also been permitted to cross-examine the complainant etc. This, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, was also the law as had been held in the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 947.
Learned counsel further submits that cross- examination was made essential as per the Government Order dated 16.10.2014. He further submits that not only was the Government Order making cross-examination imperative, the decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 58 : Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. also laid down that cross-examination of a witness was an inseparable part of the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that if the Appellate Court's order was perused, it appears to have been passed essentially on the fact that a criminal case against the petitioner was lodged under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act and he submits that as per the Full Bench decision reported in AIR 2018 All 115 (Bajrangi Tiwari vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors.), a Fair Price Shop licence could not be cancelled merely on the lodging of a criminal case against the licencee.
Learned Standing Counsel, in reply, however, submitted that once when the charges were there and the petitioner had replied to them then no further enquiry was required.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that when the Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014 were not adhered to then the orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Under such circumstances, the order dated 3.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad and the order dated 20.2.2015 passed by the District Supply Officer, District Rampur, are quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
The petitioner's Fair Price Shop Licence would be restored and the shop which the petitioner was running would also be restored to him.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 praveen.