Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5323 of 2018 Petitioner :- Haseena Khatoon Respondent :- State of U.P.
Judgment reserved on 22.10.2021. Delivered on 25.10.2021.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharam Deo Chauhan,Siddhartha Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner was a licensee of a fair price shop. On the basis of complaints, an inquiry was conducted by the Regional Food Officer, who visited the village on 2.5.2017 and recorded statements of some card holders, that essential commodities were not provided on monthly basis. Rice and kerosene oil were distributed on higher price.
2. The District Supply Officer, on the basis of inquiry report suspended the licence of petitioner and a show cause notice intimating the statements of card holders (19 in numbers) was issued to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed reply to the above notice, however, has not dealt with specific statements of card holders referred in the notice.
4. The District Supply Officer, by order dated 18.7.2017 cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter:
“उल्लेखनीय है कि कि+क्रे ता द्वारा थन कि या गया है कि मूल कि+तरण अभि9लेख प्रस्तुत कि या जा रहा है परन्तु स्पष्टी रण े साथ कि+तरण अभि9लेख ी छाया प्रतित प्रस्तुत ी गयी है जिजसमें े ारण उस े द्वारा कि या गया थन गलत है तथा मूल अभि9लेख प्रस्तुत न कि ये जाने े ारण उप9ोक्ताओ ं ी प्राकि. स्+रुप बनाये जाने +ाले हस्ताक्षर/किनशानी अंगूठा ी समीक्षा नहीं हो पा रही है। कि+क्रे ता द्वारा स्टा अभि9लेख ी 9ी छायाप्रतित प्रस्तुत ी गयी है जिजसमें अप्रैल ए+ं मई ा स्टा अभि9लेख प्रस्तुत नहीं कि या गया है और न ही खाद्यान्न प्रा. न रने +ाले उप9ोक्ताओं े स्टा अ+शेष े सम्बन्ध में ोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कि या गया है। इसी प्र ार उक्त कि+क्रे ता /उस े प्रतितकिनतिध द्वारा जिजन उप9ोक्ताओं द्वारा खाद्यान्न प्रा. न होने तथा अकिनयकिमतता कि ये जाने े सम्बन्ध में ब्यान किCये गये थे उन े सम्बन्ध में ोई साथD साक्ष्य + स्पष्टी रण न प्रस्तुत र मनगढ़न्त थन कि या गया है तथा Cसरे उप9ोक्ताओ े शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कि ये गये है। इस प्र ार कि+क्रे ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य संतोषजन नहीं है। कि+क्रे ता द्वारा अपने थन में भिश ायत ताDओं ी ग्राम प्रधान से रजिं जश होना, राशन ार्डD ी सूची ो ले र कि++ाC होना बताया गया है जबकि जांच े Cौरान उप9ोक्ताओं द्वारा स्+ेच्छा से जिजस माह ा कि+क्रे ता द्वारा खाद्यान्न कि+तरण नहीं कि या गया उस े सम्बन्ध में जिजन माहों में घटतौली ी गयी है + आ+श्य +स्तुओं ा मूल्य किनधाDरिरत Cर से अतिध लिलया गया है उस े सम्बन्ध में स्पष्ट रुप से अकिनयकिमतता+ार बयान किCया गया है। इस प्र ार कि+क्रे ता द्वारा अपने स्पष्टी रण में जो 9ी थन कि या गया है साक्ष्य े अ9ा+ में संतोषजन नहीं है। यह सत्य है कि कि+क्रे ता दृकिष्ट+ातिधत है परन्तु इस े पू+D 9ी इन े /सहयोगी द्वारा कि+तरण में अकिनयकिमतताए ी गयी थी जिजस े आरोप में कि+क्रे ता ा अनुबन्ध पत्र किनलम्बिम्बत कि या गया था तथा जमानत ी धनराभिश शासन े पक्ष में जब्त रते हुए सुधार ा ए मौ ा किCया गया था। परन्तु पुनः उक्त कि+क्रे ता/सहयोगी द्वारा कि+तरण में गम्9ीर अकिनयकिमतताएं ी गयी है तथा लगाये गये आरोपों े सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत स्पष्टी रण + साक्ष्य संतोषजन नहीं पाये गये जिजससे लगाये आरोपों ी पुकिष्ट पायी जाती है। उक्त +र्णिणत म्बिस्थत े दृकिष्टगत ऐसे कि+क्रे ता ा अनुबन्ध पत्र 9कि+ष्य में बनाये रखना उतिचत नहीं है। अतः जिजलातिध ारी महोCय े अनुमोCन आCेश किCनां 16.07.2017 े अनुपालन में जनकिहत ो Cेखते हुए किनलम्बिम्बत उतिचत Cर कि+क्रे ता श्रीमती हसीना खातून ग्राम पंचायत सौरहा सिंसहोर+ा कि+ ास खण्र्ड सेमरिरया+ाँ, तहसील खलीलाबाC, जनपC संत बीरनगर द्वारा जमा जमानत ी समस्त प्रतित9ूतित शासन े पक्ष में जब्त रते हुए अनुबन्ध पत्र तत् ाल प्र9ा+ से एतद्द्वारा किनरस्त कि या जाता है।”
5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above referred order, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Food and Civil Supply), Basti Region Basti, respondent no.3 on 13.11.2017. The relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter:
“मैंने उ9य पक्षों े कि+द्वान अतिध+क्ता े त h ो सुना तथा पत्रा+ली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों ा सम्य परीक्षण कि या। परीक्षण से स्पष्ट है कि भिश ायत ताD नुरुलहसन , ताकिहर, जलील, मसलहुद्दीन द्वारा अपीलार्णिथनी/ ोटेCार तथा उन े प्रतितकिनतिध े कि+तरण े कि+रुद्ध तहसील किC+स किCनां 02.05.2017 ो भिश ायती प्राथDना पत्र जिजलातिध ारी ो किCया गया। भिश ायती प्राथDना पत्र ी जांच क्षेत्रीय खाद्य अतिध ारी खाद्य क्षेत्र प्रथम द्वारा तत् ाल मौ े पर किCनां 02.05.2017 ो कि या गया। जांच में अपीलार्णिथनी/ ोटेCार े कि+तरण में किनम्न अकिनयकिमतताएं पायी गयी। जाँच े Cौरान अन्त्योCय योजना े ु ल 18 ार्डDधार ों ए+ं पात्र गृहस्थी योजना े ु ल 19 ार्डDधार ों द्वारा द्वारा भि9न्न-भि9न्न रुप से बयान Cे र हा गया कि ोटेCार द्वारा कि+तरण में अकिनयकिमतता ी जाती है। किनरीक्षण े समय लग9ग 05:35 बजे C ान बन्C पायी गयी। बन्Cी ा प्रCभिशत नहीं पाया गया तथा स्टा /रट बोर्डD, साइन बोर्डD आकिC C ान स्+रुप किनयमानुसार प्रCर्णिशत नहीं पाया गया उक्त अकिनयकिमतताओं े दृकिष्टगत अनुबन्ध पत्र आCेश किCनां 09.05.2017 द्वारा किनलम्बिम्बत रते हुये उस ा स्पष्टी रण ए+ं अभि9लेखीय साक्ष्य मांगा गया। अपीलार्णिथनी द्वारा अपना स्पष्टी रण ए+ं अभि9लेखीय साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कि या गया। जिजस पर अ+र न्यायालय द्वारा किबन्C+ार खण्र्डन रते हुए आरोपों े सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों ा कि++ेचना कि या गया। अपीलार्णिथनी द्वारा स्पष्टी रण े साथ कि+तरण अभि9लेख ी छायाप्रतित प्रस्तुत कि या गया , जिजस े ारण उप9ोक्ताओं द्वारा खाद्यान्न प्राकि. स्+रुप बनाये गये हस्ताक्षर/किनशानी अंगूठा ी समीक्षा नहीं कि या जा स ा। अपीलार्णिथनी द्वारा माह अप्रैल ए+ं मई ा स्टा अभि9लेख प्रस्तुत नहीं कि या गया है और न ही उप9ोक्ताओं े अ+शेष स्टा े सम्बन्ध में ोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कि या गया है। अ+र न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलार्णिथनी/ ोटेCार ो मूल अभि9लेख प्रस्तुत रने ा किनCrश किCया गया, परन्तु अपीलार्णिथनी/ ोटेCार द्वारा छाया प्रतित प्रस्तुत कि या गया है। अ+र न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलार्णिथनी/ ोटेCार ा स्पष्टी रण मनगढ़न्त ए+ं संतोषजन नहीं पाया गया। इस प्र ार अपीलार्णिथनी / ोटेCार े कि+रुद्ध लगाये गये आरोपों ी पुकिष्ट पायी गयी। अ+र न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलार्णिथनी/ ोटेCार ा अनुबन्ध पत्र 9कि+ष्य में बनाये रखना उतिचत न पाते हुए अनुबन्ध पत्र आCेश किCनां 18.07.2017 द्वारा किनरस्त र किCया गया है। अ+र न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलार्णिथनी/ ोटेCार पर लगाये गये आरोपों े सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों पर कि++ेचना रते हुए आCेश पारिरत कि या गया है। इस प्र ार अ+र न्यायालय े आCेश में कि सी हस्तक्षेप ी आ+श्य ता प्रतीत नहीं होती है। अपील किनरस्त कि ये जाने योग्य है।”
6. Both the above referred orders are impugned in the present writ petition.
7. Shri. Satyawan Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complaint was filed by some card holders. The inquiry was conducted on the same day at about 5.30 P.M., which apparently is false. The complainant has managed to get the shop allotted in is favour. Petitioner is a blind person and his entire family is dependent on the income of the shop only. The authorities have not considered his reply and appeal. The inquiry was conducted in haste and no copy of statement was provided to the petitioner.
8. Smt. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the above submission and submitted that petitioner has filed a vague reply to the notice and there was no averment/reply to the specific statements of 19 card holders who have alleged irregularities. The petitioner is a blind person, therefore, shop was run by his assistant. Strict warning were given to the petitioner on early occasions but she failed to improve her conduct.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner contained detail specific statements of 19 card holders, who made complaint of irregularities committed by the petitioner, however, no specific reply to the above complaint was filed by the petitioner, rather very vague reply was filed. The allegations of malafide and political rivalry are also very vague. There are specific finding of irregularities that card holders were charged more for essential commodities. Petitioner was warned earlier also, but she has not improved herself. She has also not placed any document about stock.
11. It is apposite to refer to a jugdment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in a bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ-C No. 15420 of 2020, Najakat Ali Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others decided on 22.10.2021. Relevant paragraphs are mentioned hereinafter:
“23. The questions, which emerge for consideration by this Court are:
"(i) Whether after issuance of Control Order 2016, having been issued in the light of Act of 2013 and Act of 2016, the earlier Government Order of 2004 stood superseded and repealed?
(ii) Whether any benefit can be extended to the dealers/licensee of the Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014, when their license has been cancelled under the new scheme of 2016, which provides for complete mechanism in itself?"
xxx xxx
85. The Full Bench of Puran Singh (supra) was also a case where the matter was referred, on there being difference of opinion as to whether any opportunity of hearing was required prior to suspension.
86. As no mechanism was provided under the Order of 2004, and the Government Order dated 29.7.2004, supplanting the said order of 2004 provided for certain opportunity of hearing which was explained by the Full Bench in Puran Singh (supra). The State on 16.10.2014 and 16.12.2015 had to issue another clarificatory Government Orders as the problem was creeping day by day as there was no fixed procedure laid down to address the problem in regard to suspension and cancellation of licence of a dealer.
87. It was in the year 2016, that a complete mechanism was provided by the State Government in the form of Control Order, 2016 having its roots from Act of 2013 and 2016. The State Government repealed all its earlier Government Orders issued in the year 2004, 2014 and 2015. Clause 8 of the Control Order, 2016 provides for operation of the fair price shop. Sub-clause (7) of Clause 8 provides for detailed procedure to be followed by the competent authority in case there is any violation of any condition of a licence including any irregularity committed by the dealer. The inquiry is to be conducted by the Designated officer or District Magistrate, and after inquiry, if the license of fair price shop is suspended along with a show cause notice, then reply/ explanation of show cause notice by dealer has to be examined by an officer one rank above the inquiry officer. This provision was not there in the Order of 2004, and the Full Bench in Puran Singh (supra) held that opportunity of hearing was necessary before suspending the licence taking help of another Government Order dated 29.7.2004.
xxx xxx
100. Thus, under the Control Order, 2016, specific provision having been made for consideration of reply/explanation pursuant to the suspension, the requirement of audi alteram partem having been afforded to a dealer appointed under an agreement, cannot claim that a regular inquiry to be conduced giving opportunity for examination of documents, cross examination of witnesses, providing copy of inquiry report and taking of affidavits, as provided under the departmental proceedings.
101. Clauses 19 and 20 of the Control Order, 2016, providing for validation and provisions for prevailing of the present control orders over the previous orders issued by the State Government, is clear enough to hold that the earlier Government Orders of 2004, 2014 and 2015 having stood repealed, do not occupy the field for laying down the procedure in respect of dealing with the matter of suspension and cancellation of a license. The entire procedure has been provided under the new Control Order, 2016.
xxx xxx
113. Clause 1(2)(kha) of Government Order dated 05.08.2019 only provides for a preliminary inquiry in case of a complaint by a card holder. During investigation, the distribution done by dealer has to be seen/verified from the portal, while it is optional that the entries may be verified from the card of the card holders. It further provides for cross-examination of the complainant and other witnesses during investigation, but does not provide for cross- examination by the dealer.
114. This Government Order does not in any way override the statutory provisions of Control Order, 2016 or dilute sub- clause (7) of Clause 8, but only provides for a caution during an inquiry.
115. The grant of a license is not a right, as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, the argument that a dealer has been roped in by the State to achieve its object of providing food to every individual and household and thus this duty entrusted also entails a right of a dealer does not hold ground as the dealer is duty bound and tied to conditions of license. Any violation will invite the penal action of the State as it amounts to blocking the aim and object of the State.
116. The burden of duty is very heavily cast upon a dealer, who has to strictly comply with the conditions of license, and cannot travel beyond the agreement executed by him, which lays various restriction upon him. The agreement is not executed blindly, but with an open eye by the licensee with the State. Once the action is taken, upon any violation, the dealer cannot turn around and blame the system on mere technicalities, as the agreement binds him to comply the conditions.
xxx xxx
123. The argument that only on complaint of few, results in proceeding for suspension and cancellation of license needs examination, does not appeal to the Court, as the recipient of the Public Distribution System are the people living Below Poverty Line, Antyodaya and Above Poverty Line households. It cannot be expected that people, who are getting subsidized ration, can muster enough courage to come up and report to the authorities against a dealer/agent. It is only when there is constant shortfall of supply at the end of dealer or the poor being harassed to such an extent, then, few muster courage to report the matter to the system.
124. We, people in India, are well aware that complaint falls on deaf ears on the Government authorities, especially coming from the people from vulnerable section of Society. One can imagine the plight of a poor man, not getting the foodgrains meant for him, and harsh treatment at the dealer end. It is only in few and exceptional cases that action are initiated.
125. The Courts cannot turn blind eye towards the plight of poor and miserable section of the Society, and grant leverage to dealers and agents restoring license in the garb of technicalities of not supplying inquiry report, opportunity of cross examination, affidavits submitted subsequently etc. It is not a case where no opportunity to file reply, as mandated under sub-clause (7) of Clause 8, was not given. It was only after the consideration of reply and show cause notice that license was cancelled.
xxx xxx 128. Thus, both the questions (i) and (ii) stand answered i.e. pursuant to the promulgation of Control Order 2016, the earlier Government Order of 2004 stood superseded and repealed. Further no benefit of Government Orders dated 29.07.2004 and 16.10.2014 can be extended while dealing with matters relating to suspension and cancellation of license under new regime of 2016.”
12. In view of the above, there is no irregularity in the impugned orders.
13. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.10.2021 SB