Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6495 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hari Ram Chaurasiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Piyush Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharam Deo Chauhan,Ram Mani Upadhyay,Vikrant Pandey
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Piyush Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ram Mani Upadhyay, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner, who is complainant, is before this Court assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 3.1.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti by which he has allowed the appeal in question and set aside the suspension order dated 26.10.2017 as well as the cancellation order dated 16.2.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the petitioner but neither he has been heard in the matter nor was made a party to the same and the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. Instead of considering the merits of the allegation levelled against the fifth respondent, the appellate authority has allowed the appeal preferred by the fifth respondent on 3.1.2019 on the ground that certain affidavits of dead persons were filed against the fair price shop dealer. Once the appellate authority has reached to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the enquiry and it was the main reason for allowing the appeal in question then in such situation it was appropriate to remand back the matter to the licensing authority but without remitting the matter back to the licensing authority, the appeal has been allowed and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve the petitioner.
On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and on the basis of allotment letter dated 16.3.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad, which is appended as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, he has tried to submit that so far as the petitioner is concerned, admittedly he is a complainant and on the other hand, his son namely Tribuwan is the beneficiary as the fair price shop licence has been settled in his favour under stop gap arrangement and as such, on this score the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Shri Ram Mani Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has also vehemently opposed the writ petition in submitting that the fair price shop licence has been accorded in favour of fifth respondent, Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Shri Rudal Yadav just before one year. So far as the complaint is concerned, the licensing authority on the basis of enquiry had proceeded to cancel the fair price shop licence and the statement of the complainant has also been recorded in the matter. Once categorical finding of fact has been returned by the Appellate Authority then in such situation there is no infirmity or illegality and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard rival submission and perused the record.
So far as the status of the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted situation that the petitioner is the complainant and on the other hand, his son was accorded the fair price shop licence under stop gap arrangement. So far as the order impugned is concerned, the Court has also proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that once the vague and evasive charges were levelled against the fair price shop dealer and the statement of the complainant has also been recorded in the matter then in such situation the appellate authority has reached to the conclusion that the charges are vague and allowed the appeal in question. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned appellate order and no interference is required.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 RKP