Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32850 of 2019 Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 17.9.2019 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4 cancelling the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 22.6.2018 fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by respondent No.5. On the basis of enquiry report submitted by him, a first information report was lodged against the petitioner on 23.6.2018 and his licence of fair price shop was suspended. On 31.8.2018 the petitioner submitted objection and on the very next day i.e. 01.9.2018 the licence of fair price shop was cancelled. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation order. During pendency of the appeal, he moved an application for re-inspection of stock and shop in question. The Appellate Court accepted the application and directed for re-inspection by the Supply Inspector and Deputy Commissioner. On the same day a recall application was moved for recalling the said order. The order dated 21.01.2019 for re-inspection was recalled on the very same day. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had filed Writ-C No.8314 of 2019. This Court on 08.3.2009 while allowing the writ petition had set aside the order passed on the recall application and directed the Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of earlier order dated 21.02.2019 by Competent Authority as per U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. Thereafter an inspection was made and the respondent No.4 submitted a report to respondent no.2. In the aforesaid report it has been stated that just to save from the penal consequence, the petitioner had tried to fill up the stock which was found less during the first inspection. Acting on the report of respondent no.4, respondent no.2 on 17.9.2019 rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record to hold that there is deficiency in the stock held by the petitioner as the report substantiate the same. Only on the basis of the first information report, the Appellant Authority has proceeded to reject the appeal. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Division bench of this Court in Raj Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 03.03.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1766 of 2011.
5. Learned Standing Counsel while vehemently opposing the writ petition submitted that there was deficiency of rice in re- inspection and thus it cannot be said that stock was as per the register. He, however, could not dispute the legal proposition of law as settled by this Court in the case of Raj Kumari (supra).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. From the order passed in appeal it appears that the Appellate Court while taking note of the fact that re-inspection was done and had also noted the stock found at the shop of the petitioner but could not hold that there was any discrepancy in the stock. However, the order of the Appellate Court takes note of the decision placed by learned counsel for the petitioner but has held otherwise. From perusal of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the licence of fair price shop cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of a first information report unless and until he is convicted for the offence charged with. In the present case as this Court had earlier directed for re-inspection vide order dated 08.03.2019 and the authorities had reinspected the shop in question and once it was found that there was no major deficiency in the stock of foodgrains then there was no reason or material on record not to accept the version of the petitioner and dismiss the appeal.
8. I find that the orders impugned dated 17.09.2019 and 01.09.2018 passed by respondents No.2 and 4 (Annexure I and II to the writ petition) are unsustainable in the eyes of law. Both the orders are hereby quashed. The licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner is restored.
9. Writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Kushal