Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20226 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kancho Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Dutta Pandey
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Mohalla Kota, District Mathura. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.3.2018 wherein charges of malpractices and irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities were laid out. The show cause notice dated 5.3.2018 required the petitioner to submit his reply along- with the supporting evidence within a period of one week. There were almost 61 charges laid out against the petitioner.
The submission of Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the time period of one week for tendering his reply along-with supporting evidence was inadequate. However to prove his bonafide the petitioner submitted his reply on 2.4.2018 along-with supporting evidence. The termination order was passed on 4.4.2018 without considering the reply of the petitioner.
The grounds of challenge are based on the facts and findings in the record. These cannot be supplemented or traversed by affidavits.
The time period given in the show cause notice to submit the reply cannot be altered and the failure of the authority to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner has to be assessed from the perusal of the records and not from the support of affidavits.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending in this court.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
The ingredients of a valid show cause notice are that the charges laid out against the noticee should furnish all materials particulars. The adverse material to be relied upon against the noticee should be provided along-with the show cause notice/charge-sheet. The show cause notice should be duly served upon the noticee. The noticee should be given adequate time to prepare his defence and tender the same before the authorities concerned.
Admittedly in the instant case the time period for the petitioner noticee to submit his reply was one week. It was wholly inadequate in the facts of the case. A large number of charges were laid out against the petitioner. The petitioner needed adequate time to prepare his defence and tender the same to the respondent authority. The petitioner was clearly disabled from tendering an effective defence due to paucity of time. The termination order was passed without considering the reply of the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner went undefended before the licensing authority. The order of termination has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the aforesaid facts the order dated 4.4.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 is quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the respondent authority with the direction to issue a fresh show cause notice along- with the adverse material which is proposed to be relied on against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be given at least four weeks time to tender his reply. Thereafter authority shall consider the same and decide the matter on merits by a reasoned and speaking order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that the decision to reinstate the shop of the petitioner shall be taken after the matter has been decided finally on merits in accordance with law by the competent authority.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Pramod