Heard Sri S.S.P. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer against whom several charges were levelled relating to irregularities. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same and according to him a report was also submitted by the Supply Inspector in his favour. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate instead of deciding the same commanded the Gram Pradhan concerned to hold an open meeting and take a decision.
Learned counsel submits that in the open meeting of the Gaon Sabha 105 members voted in favour of the petitioner whereas those who were against the petitioner walked out.
The issue relating to the decision on charges levelled against a fair price shop dealer has to be dealt with in terms of the Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990. The enquiry has to be considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and thereafter he has to proceed to pass an appropriate order keeping in view the explanation of the dealer.
In the instant case a strange process was adopted in order to facilitate the watering down of the charges through an open meeting of the Gram Sabha. In the opinion of the Court, this procedure was totally contrary to the Government Order and which was a contrivance to virtually absolve the petitioner of the charges without there being an order passed by the appropriate authority.
Merely because by a democratic process there has been a voting in favour of the petitioner, the same would not absolve the petitioner of the charges of irregularities so long as the authority does not apply its mind to the facts of a particular charge and the reply submitted by the petitioner.
In the instant case the Sub Divisional Magistrate thereafter has proceeded to pass the order on 4th June, 2001 exonerating the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner deserves to be given one more opportunity to mend his ways. In the opinion of the Court, there is no such provision under the Government Order for granting remission and allowing a reformation respite to a fair price shop dealer after charges are levellved against him. This process therefore is erroneous. The Gram Pradhan rightly filed an appeal before the Commissioner who has allowed the same and remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to act in accordance with law.
Sri Gupta submits that the appeal was not maintainable keeping in view the provisions of the Government Order.
The aforesaid argument is also misconceived, inasmuch as, the dispute relates to the continuance or otherwise of a fair price shop licence in favour of a fair price shop dealer and therefore any such dispute would be amenable under the Government Order. The order exonerating the petitioner was appealable before the Commissioner. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner who has simply remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for deciding the matter again.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2012 Sahu