Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25811 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jaspal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner - Jaspal Singh has felt aggrieved by order of suspension of fair price shop. He has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard Sri Dinesh Pathak at length and from the grounds of petition, it is revealed that the allegation that there was black marketing on the basis of which an F.I.R. was lodged and thereafter a verbatim impugned order of suspending his fair price shop could not have been passed. This is the main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on same facts criminal proceeding and suspension cannot go on. As against this, learned counsel for the State has stated that there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner which he should avail instead of rushing to this Court.
It is submitted by Counsel for State that cancellation order is not based on F.I.R. but is based on inspecting the shop and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, there are 3 reasons which I would not like to interfere with the order passed (i) there are disputed questions of fact. The Apex Court has held that when there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court should normally not undertake exercise of ascertaining factual data in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) the order is not so perverse that it requires adjudication by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by passing the statutory remedy available to the petitioner; and (iii) the basis of cancellation has always to be based on the material which is available.
It cannot be said that an F.I.R., which is alleged, cannot be the basis of cancellation even when there are other material available with the authority concerned to proceed can definitely the one parallel the reason being Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act relates to criminality of the F.I.R. whereas cancellation is a civil aspect of the Act and Rules framed thereunder.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, with no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Irshad