Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38414 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pinki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddharth Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel. Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.9.2018 passed by third respondent i.e. District Supply Officer, Sambhal (Bahjoi) cancelling the fair price shop of the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds specially on the ground that the same has been passed without jurisdiction and the District Supply Officer has no authority to cancel the fair price shop of the petitioner.
So far as the competency of the District Supply Officer regarding cancellation of the fair price shop is concerned, Shri Siddharth Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance on Order 2 sub-clause (j) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (in short "Order of 2016"), which provides for "competent authority", which means Collector and includes Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), District Supply Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Area Rationing Officer. He also placed reliance on Order 8 (7) of the Order of 2016, which provides that the competent authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop owner's license. In this backdrop, he submits that the District Supply Officer is the competent authority to pass the order impugned and the objection so raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is unsustainable. In this regard he has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Arjun v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-C No.40313 of 2017 decided on 01.12.2017 in which the Court relying upon the Government Orders dated 17.8.2002, 30.09.2004 and 13.4.2017 has opined that the District Supply Officer is the competent authority and has powers to take action against the fair price shop dealers and as such the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable. He has also raised objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the order impugned the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy to file appeal before the Commissioner of the Division and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as the judgment cited by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. For ready reference Clause 12 of Government Order dated 17.08.2002; Government Order dated 30.09.2004 and Government Order dated 13.4.2017 is reproduced as under:-
"ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd xzkeh.k {ks= dh nqdkuksa dk fujh{k.k rFkk vfu;ferrk ik;s tkus ij nqdkunkjksa ds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSAß ********* "[kk| rFkk jln vuqHkkx&5 y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 flrEcj] 2004 fo"k; %&*xzkeh.k rFkk 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds p;u] fuyEcu@fujL=hdj.k ,oa lEc)hdj.k ds lEcU/k esa izfdz;k dk fu/kkZj.kA* egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&2714@29&6&2002&162 lk0@2001] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002] la[;k&2715@29&6&2002&162lk0@2001] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002] la[;k 3577@29&6&03&8 ¼113½@03] fnukad 22&10&2003 ,oa l[;k&2260@29&6&2004&300 lk0@2003] fnukad] 29 tqykbZ] 2004 rFkk le;≤ ij tkjh vU; 'kklukn'kks sa dh d`i;k lanHkZ xgz .k djAsa 2& fofHkUu ftyksa }kjk 'kklu ls xzkeh.k {ks= ,oa 'kgjh {ks= esa mfpr nj nqdkuksa ds n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ ds vf/kdkj dh fLFkfr Li"V djuss ds lEcU/k esa ekxZn'kZu dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA mDr ds izfjizs{; esa eq>ls ;g dgus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd ftykf/kdkjh rFkk ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks lEiw.kZ ftys ds ¼ftlesa uxjh;
,oa xzkeh.k nksuksa {ks= lfEefyr gksaxs½ yf{kr tu forj.k iz.kkyh ds lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA mi ftykf/kdkjh dks vius rglhy esa fLFkr lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ djus dk vf/kdkj ;Fkkor~ jgsxkA 3& mijksDr 'kklukns'k mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;sA ************ "fo"k; %&xzkeh.k ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds p;u] fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k ,oa lEc)hdj.k ds lEcU/k esa izfdz;k dk fu/kkZj.kA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&3126@29&6&2004&300lk0@03Vhlh] fnukad 30-09-2004 dk d`i;k lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlesa lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh dh lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k vkSj muds fo:) n.MkRed ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k½ dk;Zokgh dk vf/kdkj ftykf/kdkjh@ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks Hkh iznku fd;k x;k gSA fofHkUu lzksrksa ls 'kklu ds laKku esa ;g ckr yk;h tk jgh gS fd ,d gh fcUnq ij dk;Zokgh ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh@mi ftykf/kdkjh vFkok ftykf/kdkjh dks dk;Zokgh dk vf/kdkj iznku dj fn;k x;k gS] tcfd lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds lqpk: lapkyu dk nkf;Ro lEcfU/kr ftykf/kdkfj;ksa dks lkSaik x;k gSA 2& vr% mDr 'kklukns'k esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq, bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd mi ftykf/kdkjh vius rglhy esa fLFkfr lHkh nqdkuksa dk fujh{k.k rks dj ldrs gaS] fdUrq muds fo:) n.MkRed ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k½ ,oa cgky dh dk;Zokgh ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls i=koyh ij ftykf/kdkjh dh fyf[kr vuqefr izkIr djus ds mijkUr gh djsaxsA 3& mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 30&09&2004 dks bl lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;A A joint reading of the three Government Orders dated 17.8.2002, 30.09.2004 and 13.4.2017 makes it clear that the District Supply Officer has, in a given district, power to take action against the fair price shop dealers. Under the present facts and circumstances, the impugned order which has been passed by the District Supply Officer could have very well be passed by him. It was well within the jurisdiction of the District Supply Officer to pass such order. As such the Court find substance in the contention raised by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that the District Supply Officer has power to pass the order impugned. The Court also find substance in the objection raised by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy to file appeal against the order impugned before the Commissioner of the Division.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 SP/