Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This writ petition has arisen out of the judgement/order passed by the appellate authority on 4.12.2019 whereby the order dated 27.3.2019 passed by the prescribed authority cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop licence has been upheld.
The brief facts of the case are that a complaint signed by one Khalid out of eight persons named at the bottom was made on 31.1.2019 before the District Magistrates. The complaint alleged non supply of food grains by the dealer i.e. petitioner. The District Magistrates marked the said complaint to the District Supply Officer for being looked into. The District Supply Officer in turn forwarded the complaint to Area Ration Officer for taking necessary action. The Area Ration Officer in compliance of the direction issued by the District Supply Officer undertook the exercise of preliminary enquiry and a report was submitted before the District Supply Officer on 02.2.2019. The preliminary report submitted before the District Supply Officer was stated to be supported with the statements of as many as 47 beneficiaries which, as per record produced before this Court, were taken on plain papers. These statements, however, do not bear any date and time. The preliminary report submitted before the District Supply Officer resulted into issuance of a charge memo on the same very date i.e. 2.2.2019, a copy of which is filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
The charge memo reiterates the allegations of 47 beneficiaries including those who were named at the bottom of complaint made on 31.1.2019. The general complaint made against the petitioner was that the food grains as well as the kerosene oil was supplied to them irregularly and the entries made in the distribution register were fictitious. The statements of the beneficiaries further reveals that it was at the time of delivery of the kerosene oil that the petitioner (dealer) entered the supply of food grains on their ration cards but actually there was no supply made to them. The charge memo served upon the petitioner was replied on 18.2.2019. The petitioner has specifically denied the charges levelled against her by explaining the position in the light of distribution register. The petitioner also took shelter of the periodic reports forwarded by the Gram Pradhan and the official supervisor to disprove the allegations.
In the normal course, when there is a denial of the charges levelled against the dealer, the government orders applicable in this behalf, require holding of an enquiry by the prescribed authority or an officer higher in rank than the one who had conducted the preliminary enquiry.
Learned Standing Counsel has produced the original record before this Court. On a pointed query as to whether any enquiry was conducted subsequent to the date of issuing the charge memo on 2.2.2019 or submission of reply on 18.2.2019 or not, the record reveals that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted after the issuance of the charge memo on 2.2.2019 nor a report thereof was submitted before the prescribed authority before passing the impugned order on 27.3.2019. The order passed by the District Supply Officer on 27.3.2019 recites the same very preliminary enquiry report and the statements collected by the Area Ration Officer which were not proved. None of the persons at whose behest or those whose statements were relied upon were ever produced during the course of enquiry yet the statements allegedly made by them have been placed reliance upon.
In this manner, the prescribed authority has doubtlessly failed to discharge his duty of holding a fair enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law.
This Court is constrained to put on record that the enquiries held in the matter of cancellation of fair price shop licences are by and large found faulty. The District Magistrates are expected to be vigilant in this regard. The supply of food grains to the beneficiaries living below the poverty line is one of the essential duties of the administration. For execution of such a duty, the quality and quantity checks must be well supervised. The complaints made by the beneficiaries have to be weighed seriously but it does not imply that frivolous complaints against the dealers should be entertained for the sake of harassment and half-hearted probe. Even if it is assumed that a summary procedure is applicable in the matter of holding the enquiry, yet it does not follow that a charge levelled against a fair price shop dealer remains unproved. The grant of opportunity and holding a fair enquiry is a basic requirement of law. The administrative or quasi judicial decisions having civil consequences are bound to be reasoned and based on admissible material, otherwise any such action shall lack sanctity of law and would lead to chaos.
The record produced before this Court also reveals that prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 27.3.2019, the petitioner was not associated with any enquiry by fixing date, place and time for examination of the complainants whose complaint made on 31.1.2019 was the basis of initiating the proceedings. Even the complaint made on 31.1.2019 was not signed by all the eight persons except one viz Khalid whose wife Zufia is rather complainant no.1. A complaint which was not signed by the complainants has nevertheless evoked the response of district magistrate but without the same being proved in accordance with law, the whole exercise is sham and does not justify the impugned action.
Learned counsel in order to justify the impugned action has submitted that the preliminary enquiry recording the statements of other beneficiaries recorded by the ARO (Area Ration Officer) by itself shows that a large number of beneficiaries were dissatisfied with the conduct of the petitioner, as such, the statements so recorded are an ample proof of the alleged irregularly. The argument put forth cannot be accepted for the reason that all such statements were recorded at the back of the petitioner and were never subjected to scrutiny through the process of law. The Standing Counsel appearing for the State, however could not demonstrate from the record that any enquiry was actually held by the prescribed authority himself or through any competent person before passing the impugned order.
In these circumstances, the Court is convinced that the case at hand is a fit case for interference particularly when the appellate authority having summoned the record, has failed to notice the procedural illegality in the decision making process. The appellate authority by having rendered a cryptic decision in the appeal, clearly fell in error and the very exercise of appellate power, in the circumstances of the case, is deplorable.
The writ petition for what has been recorded above deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The petitioner in absence of any other legal impediment may be restored as a dealer to supply the food grains without any delay.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Fahim/-