1. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Gupta for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 28th July, 2006 whereby petitioner's fair price agreement has been suspended by District Supply Officer and the appellate order dated 29th April, 2008 rejecting his appeal.
3. It appears that a surprise checking was made at the petitioner's fair price shop wherein certain irregularities were found including shortage of sugar to the extent of One Quintal 20 kilogram, in respect whereto the occupant at the shop informed the Inspecting authority that the said quantity of sugar was given to Gram Pradhan. Considering the inspection report, the District Supply Officer by order dated 28th July, 2006 suspended the agreement of the petitioner and directed him to submit his reply/explanation within 15 days along with requisite documents. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order of suspension which has been rejected by the Commissioner by means of the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Pramod present at the shop was not son of the petitioner and therefore the District Supply Officer in observing that the petitioner's son stated that the sugar was supplied to Gram Pradhan is incorrect. However he could not dispute that even if the said averment was not made by his son, it was made by the person who was present at that time as incharge of the shop and running the same and was occupant of the shop. That be so, he was obviously agent of the petitioner and his statement had to be relied on. It is nowhere said that Pramod did not make the aforesaid statement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that before passing order of suspension it was incumbent upon District Supply Officer to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and in support thereof relied on a Division Bench decision in Harpal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors 2008(3) ADJ 36.
6. I am very surprised that a decision, which has subsequently been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court, is being relied on by learned counsel. In Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) ADJ 659 Full Bench in its judgment dated 5th April, 2010 held that decision of Division Bench in Harpal (supra) that opportunity is necessary before suspension of fair price agreement is not a correct law and accordingly overruled the same. It answered the questions referred to Full Bench as under:
(i) Before suspension of fair price agreement it is not mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing and thus on the plea of its violation, the order of suspension is not liable to be set aside.
(ii) Division Bench judgments in Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (1) ALJ 407 and Harpal Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2008 (4) ALJ 10 holding that opportunity is must does not lay down the correct law.
7. Now, we are in March, 2011. After almost 11 months from the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, still the Division Bench judgment, which has been overruled by the Full Bench, is being relied. This shows non preparation of the matter at the Bar and really unfortunate. In any case, the contention advanced stand replied by the Full Bench judgment in Puran Singh (supra) hence rejected.
8. In the circumstances, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the impugned order. Dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 10.3.2011 KA