Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30243 of 2015 Petitioner :- Pooran Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was the fair price shop licensee of village Divrai, Vikas Khand Kurawali, Tehsil and District Mainpuri. His agreement was suspended on 12.06.2014, which was followed by a termination order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mainpuri. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.06.2014 and 18.07.2014 which, according to the petitioner, was not considered properly and without any adverse material, the impugned order dated 24.07.2014 was passed. Therefore, the petitioner filed an Appeal No.64 of 2014 before the Deputy Commissioner (Food and Supply), Agra Division, Agra, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.04.2015. Aggrieved with these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary, illegal and without any adverse material on record, and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
Learned standing counsel supports the impugned orders.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.
Undisputedly, when spot inspection was made by the Supply Inspector on 12.06.2014, statements of cardholders were recorded who stated that every month food-grains and kerosene oil have been distributed to them. The only discrepancy found at the time of inspection was that stock and toll free number were not mentioned on the Board, and on 10.06.2014, wheat was not distributed and in the sale register at some places, quantity and value were not entered. The petitioner submitted an explanation in which he stated that stock was mentioned on the Board by "khadiya" (chalk) which stood rubbed as card-holders were standing touching the Board while taking the goods, he was having no knowledge that the toll-free number has been changed. He stated that kerosene oil could not be received on the distribution date and as such it could not be distributed. He also submitted that every goods received by him was found in stock. He further stated that inadvertently at some places, the quantity/ value could not be entered in the sale register which subsequently mentioned. He submitted a second reply dated 18.07.2014 in which he stated that he has not been served with the copy of the inspection report and the statement given by card-holders, if any. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24.07.2014 shows that the respondent No.3 has not found that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was incorrect or false. He merely observed that it was not found satisfactory. No reasons have been recorded that why he formed opinion that the explanation is not satisfactory. The statement of fact made by the petitioner in his explanation regarding mentioning of stock and toll free number on the Notice Board, has not been disputed by the respondent No.3. He has also not disputed the explanation with regard to distribution of wheat along with kerosene oil on the same day as per demand of the card-holders. Non-mentioning of quantity/ value in the sale register at some places due to inadvertence has also not been found to be false by the respondent No.3. The appellate authority also has not found any of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to be incorrect or false. On the contrary, he found that at the time inspection, statement of card-holders were recorded. The appellate authority has not recorded any adverse opinion with regard to 23 card-holders whose statements were recorded at the time of inspection and who stated that food-grains and kerosene oil are received by them every month. It is not the case of the respondents that any discrepancy in stock was found. Once no material discrepancy was found and the card-holders have stated that they are regularly receiving kerosene oil and wheat from the fair price shop of the petitioner, there was no justification to cancel the fair price shop agreement. That apart, no reasons have been recorded by the authorities to reject the explanation of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are here by quashed.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mainpuri and the impugned appellate order dated 22.04.2015 in Appeal No.64 of 2014 (Pooran Singh Vs. State of U.P.) passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food and Supply), Agra Division, Agra are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.5000/- which the respondents shall pay to the petitioner within a month.
As a result of allowing the writ petition, the respondent No.3 shall pass consequential order with regard to restoration of fair price shop agreement of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed with costs to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 30.01.2019
NLY