Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4265 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kunwar Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Sudhir Dixit
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that the licence of petitioner's fair price shop was suspended by order dated 01.02.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kol, District Aligarh on the ground that on an information a vehicle was intercepted filled with 59 bags of food grains and it was found that the same belongs to petitioner's fair price shop which was for the purpose of black marketing and, therefore, a First Information Report was lodged against petitioner bearing Case Crime No. 0031 of 2016, dated 28.01.2016 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that suspension order was passed only on the basis of said FIR. Petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice, therefore, his fair price shop licence was cancelled vide order dated 14.09.2016 and further appeal thereagainst was also dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2017. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgement passed by Full Bench of this Court in Bajrangi Tiwari vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors., AIR 2018 All. 115 wherein it has been held that licence of a fair price shop cannot be cancelled on the ground of mere pendency of a criminal case.
2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents has submitted that it is not a case where only on the basis of First Information Report the licence of fair price shop was cancelled. He pointed out that an inquiry was also conducted wherein certain irregularities were found and it was also a basis to pass the suspension order. He further submits that in the judgment of Smt. Raj Kumari Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 All.CJ 838 it has been observed that in a case of filing of FIR, the authorities are at liberty to conduct an independent inquiry on the allegation of irregularities and action can be taken thereafter.
3. In the present case a vehicle, wherein there was stock of petitioner's fair price shop, was intercepted and it was alleged that said stock was for black marketing and on the basis of such a First Information Report was lodged against petitioner. However, subsequently an inquiry was also conducted wherein certain irregularities were found and on the basis of such inquiry a suspension order dated 01.02.2016 was passed. It appears that petitioner failed to file any explanation to the show cause notice and only on the basis of lodging of First Information Report the authority has cancelled fair price shop agreement of petitioner vide order dated 16.09.2016. The said order has not considered the subsequent inquiry conducted, though details thereof were mentioned in the suspension order.
4. In view of above, as held in Bajrangi Tiwari (supra) and Smt. Raj Kumari Singh (supra) that a fair price shop agreement cannot be cancelled only on the ground of lodging of an FIR but authority can conduct independent inquiry and pursuant to it action could be taken. The writ petition, therefore, is partly allowed. Impugned orders dated 16.09.2016 and 07.12.2017 are hereby set aside. However, suspension order dated 01.02.2016 is not interfered and the respondents-authorities are directed to consider the matter afresh including the effect of subsequent inquiry conducted by concerned officer which is mentioned in the suspension order. Petitioner is at liberty to submit a reply to the suspension order within six weeks from today and thereafter authorities shall take final decision after hearing the parties in accordance with law within a further period of twelve weeks.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 AK