Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50005 of 2012 Petitioner :- Irshad Husain Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zafeer Ahmad,Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 13.6.2012 passed by Additional (Sub) District Magistrate Sadar, Moradabad as well as impugned order dated 23.7.2012 passed by Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad in appeal no. 221/2011-12.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions states that in response to the show cause notice dated 16.5.2012, he had furnished detailed response (annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) wherein categorical claim is being set up that 702 ration cardholders were attached with the shop of the petitioner and only 2050 litre kerosene oil was released in his favour. Petitioner had also ensured to distribute 3 litre kerosene oil to every cardholder but the same was exercised on the basis of "first come first serve" on account of deficit supply. It is also being claimed that while submitting the response, petitioner had also appended notarised affidavits given by the cardholders and had also appended the distribution certificate issued by the competent authority for the month of February, March and April and as such it is sought to be contended the requisite certificate had been issued to the petitioner then for the said month objection could not be raised that there was any mal practise in the distribution of the essential commodities. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Ramhit Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2011(9) ADJ 623.
On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and reiterated version of the counter affidavit. He submits that initially on complaint made by two persons, namely, Rohit and Tasleem regarding irregularities in distribution of essential commodities, the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Moradabad directed Area Supply Inspector to inquire into the matter. During inquiry it has been found that the petitioner was indulged in grave irregularities while distributing essential commodities and also misbehaved with the ration cardholders and only on the basis of said complaint, cognizance has been taken by the authorities and the shop in question has been placed under suspension on 16.5.2012 and subsequently the license was cancelled on 16.5.2012 strictly following the Control Order 2004, relevant Government Orders as well as Full Bench dictum of this Court in Puran Singh (supra) and the same was also got approved by the appellate authority and as such no interference is required by this Court in the orders impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record. Bare perusal of the order impugned whereby cancellation order has been passed, at this stage, it is relevant to indicate while responding to the show cause notice, the petitioner in para 5 of the said response has claimed there was certain deficit in supply of kerosene oil on account of which on the basis of "first come first serve", three litre kerosene oil had been ensured to every cardholders and wheat had also been given to every cardholders in the same manner. While submitting the show cause notice, he had also given notarised affidavits affixed with photographs and the same are being disputed by the licensing authority while cancelling the license precisely on the ground that subsequently they had appeared and admitted at no point of time they had given the said notarised affidavits. But nothing has been brought on record once the enquiry has already got conducted in the matter and the petitioner has taken categorical stand regarding lesser distribution and the requisite certificate for the month of February, March and April has been issued by the competent authority without indicating in the show cause notice in which month there was mal distribution of essential commodities mere vague charges have been levelled against the petitioner without considering the ground reality as such this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the orders impugned are hereby set aside. The petitioner's fair price shop is restored forthwith. However, it will be open to the competent authority to hold a full fledged enquiry and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 A.K.Srivastava