Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4342 of 2013
Petitioner :- Narendra Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yugul Kishore Narayan,Mrs. Vatsala
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.12.2010 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 02.06.2011 passed by respondent no. 2.
3. The case in nutshell is that petitioner was granted licence for fair price shop situated at Village- Pichauti, Block- Hasayan, Tehsil- Sikandra Rao, District- Mahamaya Nagar/ Hathras on 12.01.2006. It appears that First Information Report was lodged under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on 23.02.2010 at P.S.- Hasayan, District- Hathras by the Food Inspector. The licence of the fair price shop was suspended on 25.02.2010, and show cause notice was issued on 31.05.2010, which was replied by the petitioner filing his objection on 01.06.2010 on the ground that the complaint made by the Pradhan was frivolous, as he had demanded the illegal gratification and on refusal by the petitioner the licence was suspended. The licence of the fair price shop was cancelled on 01.12.2010. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before respondent no. 2 and the same was also dismissed on 02.06.2011.
4. Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Pradhan, Ashok Kumar after winning the election had demanded one quintal sugar from the petitioner so that the sweets could be prepared and distributed among villagers on his victory, but the petitioner refused to do so. After which a complaint was made and the proceedings were initiated. It was further contended that as Pradhan was continuously making false complaint, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, which was numbered as Case No. 2652 of 2006, which is still pending. It has further been pointed out that no irregularity has been committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders. Further, the respondent no. 3 while passing the order dated 01.12.2010 had recorded a categorical finding that some of the replies given by the petitioner were correct but as the enquiry report states that 16 card holders were not given kerosene oil and wheat, as such the licence was suspended by the said order.
5. It is further contended that the appellate authority had not considered the ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal and has only dismissed the appeal on the basis of enquiry report of three member committee. She has relied upon the judgments of this Court in case of Pooran Singh vs. State of U.P and others 2010(3) ADJ 659, Ajay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. 2018 (7) ADJ 301, Dayanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2018 (12) ADJ 548, Dayaram vs. Divisional Commissioner/ Appellate Authority, Lucknow and others 2018 (Suppl) ADJ 56 (LB), Smt. Raj Kumari vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (3) ADJ 638.
6. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petition and defended the order passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It was also submitted that the petitioner had committed irregularity in distribution of essential commodities and the authorities after considering the enquiry report conclusively held that the licence of petitioner cannot continue as he has failed to discharge his duty.
7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the material on record.
8. It appears that the licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the initiation of proceedings by the Pradhan, Ashok Kumar who made complaint with the authorities after he was elected as Pradhan of the village. It was on his complaint that enquiry was conducted and three member committee was constituted to look into the matter. The objections filed by the petitioner to show cause notice was not decided, but in fact, licence was cancelled by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 01.12.2010. While passing the said order the respondent no. 3 had arrived at the conclusion that some of the replies given by the petitioner were correct but he did not record the same as to what reply given by the petitioner was correct and what material was against the record. It appears that the authority concerned was satisfied to some extent that the complaint made by Ashok Kumar and the findings of the enquiry Committee was not correct but it did not disclose as to what was correct and which finding of the enquiry report was wrong. It was incumbent upon the respondent no. 3 while passing the order dated 01.12.2010 to have specifically recorded the finding as to what irregularity was committed by the petitioner and to what extent he was correct. In case he arrives at a finding that there was any illegal demand made by Pradhan from the petitioner after he won the election, then the very basis of the complaint so made by him would have no legs to stand. Similarly, the appellate authority while endorsing the recommendations of the enquiry Committee failed to record any finding as to why the appeal was not maintainable, while specific grounds were taken in the appeal before the appellate authority. It is well settled law that the appellate authority is the last fact finding court, it should have dealt with each and every ground so raised and pressed before it.
9. From the perusal of the order of the appellate authority and the grounds of appeal, it appears that the appellate authority has completely failed to consider any of the ground so raised by the petitioner and only the report of the three member committee has been endorsed upon after recording the facts of the case.
10. I find that both authorities had not considered the issue in depth before coming to the conclusion of cancelling the licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, the orders dated 01.12.2010 and 02.06.2011 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3 to enquire the facts of the case de novo after affording an opportunity of hearing. It is further directed that the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner be restored and it is expected that the respondent no. 3 may complete the entire exercise within four months after the licence of the petitioner is restored.
12. The writ petition stands party allowed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 V.S.Singh