1. Under challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 28.6.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rudauli, District Faizabad, respondent no. 3 herein, whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 17.2.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, respondent no. 2 herein, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been rejected.
2. On the complaint made by M/s Raja Ram, Jhigai, Ganga Ram and others on 23.2.2016, the Regional Food Officer, Rudauli made a spot inspection and recorded the statements of card holders present and on the basis of the report submitted by him the respondent no. 2 by his order dated 27.2.2016 suspended the license / agreement of the petitioner. By the same order the petitioner was required to show cause within the time mentioned therein.
3. On 29.3.2016, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. Alongwith his reply the petitioner enclosed a letter of Gram Pradhan and 100 card holders to show that the charges leveled against him were unfounded. Thereafter, the respondent no.3, recorded the statement of some card holders behind the back of the petitioner and straightway proceeded to pass an order dated 28.6.2016 cancelling the license of the petitioner without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the respondent no. 2 by his order dated 17.2.1017.
4. Heard Sri M.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and perused the record. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled without following the procedure laid down in the Government order dated 29.07.2004 as also in violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. The State Government has issued a Government order dated 29.07.2004, laying down the procedure for suspending/ cancelling the fair price shop license/agreement. As per clause 4 of the Government order dated 29.07.2004, before cancelling the fair price shop license, the Competent Authority is obliged to issue a show cause notice containing the charges levelled against the licensee. The Competent Authority is required to pass a speaking order after holding an oral inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
6. In Puran Singh v. State, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947, a Full Bench of this Court has held that paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the Government order dated 29.07.2004 contemplate a full fledged inquiry before the license/ agreement of a fair price shop is cancelled. The Full Bench has held that as per the Government order dated 29.07.2004 an opportunity of hearing is required before passing an order of cancellation.
7. In Writ - C No. 3611 of 2014, Sanjay Kumar v. State, following Puran Singh (Supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:
"The procedure for holding an inquiry for cancelling the licence of the fair price shop has been provided in the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 read with U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004.
The aforesaid Government Order and Distribution Order came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in case of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (3) ADJ 659 (FB). The Court considering para 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 held that it contemplates a full-fledged inquiry pursuant to the show cause notice for cancellation and then a final decision in the matter.
The aforesaid decision was followed by the learned Single Judge in his judgement and order dated 28.11.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013 and referring to paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh's case his Lordship observed that a full-fledged inquiry is necessary before cancelling the agreement and it would require service of the charges, along with material in support of each charge, the information about the place and date of inquiry, the statements of persons on whose complaint inquiry was started or in a case of suo-motu inquiry, the statements of the persons appearing before the Inquiry Officer.
In other words it means that an independent inquiry before passing an order of cancellation of licence to run a fair price shop is mandatory and a show cause notice simplicitor is not sufficient to conform to the principles of natural justice.
It is obligatory upon the authorities to hold a full-fledged inquiry against the fair price shop dealer, after serving of the charge sheet with regard to the date and place where the hearing will took place and to give an opportunity of hearing. This is in addition to the show cause notice issued for the purposes of suspension of the licence of the fair price shop."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In Laloo Singh v. State, (2015) 6 All LJ 613 this Court has held that the cancellation of an agreement/license of a party is a serious business and cannot be taken lightly. In order to justify the action taken to cancel such an agreement/license, the authority concerned has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the rules/guidelines framed for the said purposes including the principles of natural justice.
9. This Court in Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (26) LCD 891 has held that where fair price shop license of a dealer is cancelled by placing reliance on the report of the Supply Inspector and the copy of the report is not furnished to the dealer, such an order is in contravention of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
10. In the present case, a perusal of the order dated 28.2.2016 would show that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the basis of the statements of the card holders recorded behind the back of the petitioner and that too without supplying copies of the said statements to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. A copy of the report submitted by the Area Food Officer has also not been supplied to the petitioner. Moreover, in his order, the respondent no. 3 has not at all discussed the grounds urged by the petitioner in his reply in support of his defence. Admittedly, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without holding any inquiry, whatsoever.
11. In view of the settled legal position, the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop agreement / license is ostensibly in contravention of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. The Appellate Authority has also failed to rectify the error committed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and as such the order passed by the Appellate Authority is also liable to be set aside alongwith the order of the Competent Authority.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rudauli, District Faizabad and the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food), Faizabad Division, Faizabad are hereby quashed.
13. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- November 29, 2019 Anupam