Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16024 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Kamlesh Devi Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, Judicial, Aligarh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Murli Dhar Mishra,Kamaleshwar Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that, on 07.12.2015, the date fixed for distribution of essential commodities in the village when observer reached, the shop was found closed. The observer informed the licensing authority by submitting a report on 07.12.2015. It was further submitted that without verification of the stock by the observer, the distribution was made by the petitioner on the next day. The distribution made by her was in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 as also the agreement signed by her. The report narrated in the suspension order dated 12.02.215 categorically indicates that the observer remained present at the shop on 07.12.2014 from 8.00 A.M. till 12.00 noon. Despite instructions given by him, the dealer and her husband who were present on the spot did not open the shop for verification of the stock. Distribution was not done in the presence of the observer at all.
In reply to this charge, the explanation offered by the petitioner is that she was admitted in the hospital namely Motiram Damodardas, Hospital, Sadabad on 06.12.2014 in emergency. On 07.12.2014 the shop was closed on account of illness of the fair price shop dealer. On 08.12.2014 after discharge from the hospital, she distributed the essential commodities to the ration card holders as per the quantity allotted to each beneficiary.
This explanation was not found favour in as much as, the licensing authority categorically records that prior to the distribution, verification of stock as was required to be done by the petitioner was not made. Without any intimation to the observer, the essential commodities could not have been distributed by the petitioner.
Challenging these findings, the contention of the petitioner is that the licensing authority and the appellate authority had failed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for keeping the shop closed on 07.12.2014. The allegation of non-distribution of essential commodities in the charge sheet are vague. Several card holders had submitted affidavits in favour of the petitioner stating therein that they received the desired quantity and there was not complaint against the fair price shop dealer.
These contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are not acceptable for the simple reason that the distribution of essential commodities is essentially to be made in the presence of the observer on the designated date. The date fixed for the distribution is notified in the village so as to ensure fair and proper distribution of essential commodities and further to protect beneficiaries from any harassment by the dealer. The petitioner could not have kept the shop closed on the designated date i.e. on 07.12.2014. In case, of any emergency as alleged by her, it was obligatory upon her to inform the licensing authority in advance or on the said date itself. The observer in his report has categorically stated that the petitioner and her husband were present but they did not open the shop. No exception can be taken to the facts recorded in the cancelled order as per the report of the observer.
Moreover, the distribution as allegedly made by the petitioner on 08.12.2014 was without verification of the stock and in absence of the observer and the distribution was done without any previous information to the licensing authority.
For all the above discussion, this Court does not find any justification to interfere in the decision taken by the licensing authority and the appellate authority.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 Himanshu