Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23116 of 2014 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Bharat Singh Pal,Devesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
When certain complaints were made against the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar and upon finding substance in the complaints, the petitioner's fair price shop licence was suspended on 14.9.2012 and a show cause notice was also issued to him. The petitioner thereafter replied to the show cause notice on 25.10.2012. However, upon finding the reply of the petitioner not to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner's fair price shop licence was cancelled on 3.11.2012. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed an appeal and when the appeal was also dismissed on 25.1.2014, the instant writ petition was filed.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in his reply the petitioner had categorically stated that the complaints of such persons who were not even the residents of the village were entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the show cause notice, as per the Government Order dated 29.7.2004, was defective as it did not categorically state as to what punishment would be inflicted on the petitioner in the event the reply was not found to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. Learned counsel further submitted that after the petitioner had submitted his reply, he expected a proper enquiry would take place and a place, date and time would be fixed. In the absence of a proper enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that had an enquiry been conducted, he would have cross-examined the complainants and their witnesses. Still further, if the enquiry had taken place, he would led evidence in defence before the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of this Court in Ajay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2018 (5) ADJ 301 and submitted that since the enquiry was vitiated as no place, date or time was fixed for conducting the enquiry, the orders impugned in this petition are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered in its right perspective and, therefore, the orders may not be interfered with.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the orders impugned in the petition, the Court is of the view that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner itself was defective as it did not contain the punishment which would follow the enquiry. The petitioner should also have been afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had deposed against him. The Court also finds that in the absence of any proper enquiry which was mandatory as per the then prevailing Government Order dated 29.7.2004, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Under such circumstances, the order dated 2.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 25.1.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur are set-aside. However, setting-aside the impugned orders would not mean automatic revival of the fair price shop licence of the petitioner.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall now conduct a fresh enquiry in pursuance of the prevailing Government Order and conclude the same within a period of three months. For a period of three months or till the conclusion of the enquiry, whichever is earlier, the present arrangement of distribution of the essential commodities shall continue.
With the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)