Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38778 of 2018 Petitioner :- Munna Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Manu Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 4.10.2018 passed by the second respondent, Sub Divisional Officer, Atrauli, District Aligarh, by which the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The request has also been made for issuing direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his fair price shop in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was a fair price shop agent of village Rampur Chandiyana, Block Bijauli, Tehsil Atrauli, District Aligarh. On certain complaint, proceeding of cancellation of the licence was initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him on 21.8.2018 to which he had submitted a detailed reply alongwith affidavits of several persons on 12.9.2018, denying the charges levelled against him. By the impugned order dated 4.10.2018 the Licencing Authority has cancelled the fair price shop licence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had committed irregularities in distributing the essential commodities but at no point of time, he has applied his independent mind while passing the impugned order and only on the basis of office report, the impugned order has been passed whereby the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgements and orders of this Court passed in Writ C No.35435 of 2018 (Ravendra Singh Rawat vs. State of UP and 2 others) decided on 25.10.2018; Writ C No.29150 of 2018 (Smt. Manju Devi vs. State of UP and 2 others) decided on 28.8.2018 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34351 of 2016 (Mahendra Singh vs. State of UP and another) decided on 5.8.2016. He also submits that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
Shri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that against the impugned order the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division and once the statutory forum is available to the petitioner he can very well avail the same and take all the grounds, which have been taken in the present writ petition, before the appellate authority and the appellate authority on the basis of such claim set up by the petitioner can decide the matter. No interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Shri Manu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha submits that in the present matter, the essential commodities were confiscated. The first information report has also been lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and the investigation is going on. In such circumstances, no indulgence is required in the matter.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and perused the impugned order and finds that the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner definitely has force. A bare perusal of the impugned order this much is clearly reflected that at no point of time the objection raised by the petitioner has ever been dealt with by the Licensing Authority independently. The authority concerned has not applied his own mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner and he has passed the order impugned without application of mind relying upon the the office report. The order must be passed after recording reason and in absence of any such reason, the order is liable to be quashed. The Court has also gone through the aforesaid judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the writ petitions were allowed and the orders were set aside on the ground that once the authority is empowered to exercise quasi-judicial power then that power has to be exercised in judicial way by passing the reasoned speaking order after considering the material available on record independently and he cannot depend his decision upon the assessment made by any other authority.
Therefore, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgements, the impugned order dated 4.10.2018 cannot sustain and the same is set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Atrauli, District Aligarh to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh independently strictly in accordance with law after considering the entire objection so raised by the petitioner and on the basis of material available on record expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 RKP