Court No. - 19
Judgment Reserved on 21.9.2021.
Delivered on 30.9.2021.
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7405 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Parwati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The petitioner, a licensee of a fair price shop is aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2018, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dudhi, district-Sonebhadra, (hereinafter referred to as “respondent no.3”) whereby his license was cancelled and order dated 4.2.2020, whereby the appeal to it was also rejected.
2. On the basis of certain complaints filed on Tehsil divas, an inquiry was conducted by the Supply Inspector on 15.4.2017 and during inspection of the shop, statements of certain card holders were also recorded and on the basis of above report, fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 15.4.2017 passed by the respondent no.3. The order was passed on the basis of statements of about 30 card holders who stated that they were getting less quantity of grain, rice and kerosene oil than their entitlement on payment of more than fixed price.
3. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice and denied the allegations made in the impugned order. He has placed on record the documents signed by many card holders to the effect that they got entire eligible quantity of essential commodities on prescribed price.
4. The respondent no.3, after considering the reply of the petitioner as well as the enquiry report submitted by the Supply Inspector, cancelled the licence of the fair price shop with the sanction of the District Magistrate. The authority found that in the distribution register neither the quantity of grain, rice, kerosene oil was recorded, nor the amount of payment of money was recorded. Even the petitioner has not produced the stock register despite repeated request. It was also found that the sign board was not placed outside the shop. There is a specific finding in the impugned order that the stamp papers on which the affidavits of some card holders were taken and filed were in serial and were purchased by one person which creates doubt about authenticity of the contents of the said affidavits. The authority also found that there was no reason to disbelieve the statements recorded during inspection which clearly demonstrates that the card holders were paying more money for less quantity of grain, rice and kerosene oil.
5. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority by a detailed order that there was no error in the order of the licensing authority.
6. Azad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suspension order dated 15.4.2017, itself was without jurisdiction as it was passed without taking prior written permission from the Collector as provided in the Government Order dated 13.4.2017. Copy of the inquiry report which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, was not provided to the petitioner and the order of suspension was passed on the same day on which the alleged inspection was conducted. The impugned orders were passed without considering the affidavits filed in support of the petitioner that no irregularity was committed by the petitioner and the card holders were getting full quantity of grain, rice and kerosene oil at the fixed rate. No opportunity was given to cross-examine the card holders who allegedly recorded their statements during inquiry, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set- aside.
7. Per contra, Satyendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the suspension order was passed on 15.4.2017, whereas the aforesaid Government Order wherein it was prescribed to take prior permission from the Collector for suspension of the fair price shop was issued two days before i.e. on 13.4.2017, therefore, it was not possible that every officer of the State had immediate knowledge of the said Government Order and further pointed out that the order of cancellation dated 12.3.2018 was passed after taking prior permission from the Collector on 27.1.2018.
8. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the sign board/stock board was not put in front of the shop as it is normally kept inside the shop. The affidavits of the card holders filed on behalf of the petitioner were found doubtful by both the authorities that they were purchased by one person in serial from one vendor. The stock register was not produced despite repeated request, even the amount and price of commodities was not mentioned in the distribution register and as stated there were serious irregularities committed by the petitioner, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
9. Heard Azad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Satyendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel. Perused the record.
10. The Supply Inspector had conducted a spot inspection and recorded the statements of many card holders who made complaint against the petitioner that he was charging more money but supplying less quantity of rice, grain and kerosene oil.
11. The petitioner failed to produce the stock register before the authority. The distribution register was found to be incomplete as the details of the amount of commodities and the amount of payments were not recorded.
12. The affidavits of some card holders filed along with the reply of the petitioner were found very doubtful as the same were purchased by one person and from one vendor. The appellate authority has held that if the contents of the affidavits are considered to be true, still the allegations made against the petitioner of charging more money for less quantity would be considered to be proved. The petitioner has failed to submit relevant documents in support of his submission.
13. It is relevant to mention that the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016, provide provisions for appointment and regulation of fair price shops (Regulation No.7), operation of fair price shops (Regulation No.8) and Monitoring (Regulation No.9). Clause 6 and 7 of Regulation No.8 provides that Competent Authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shops owner which may include suspension or cancellation of fair price shop owner license and further that, such proceeding shall be concluded in two months. The Government Control Order, 2016 does not provide any detailed inquiry.
14. From the above discussion on fact as well as on law, it is clear that the procedure prescribed under the Control Order, 2016 was followed. The petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to submit relevant documents in support of his submission and thereafter the impugned orders were passed after taking note of the reply and certain documents filed by the petitioner and by a reasoned decision, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled and subsequently by a detailed and reasoned order, appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed. The allegation against the petitioner of committing irregularities in distribution of essential commodities was proved by the statements of about 30 card holders. The petitioner failed to produce relevant documents. The register was found incomplete. The affidavits does not inspire confidence. Petitioner has failed to discharge obligations and duties as mentioned in the Control Order, 2016, therefore no circumstances exist which warrant interference in the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date:30.9.2021.
SB