Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26222 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Panchu Ram Maurya,Shashank Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 1.7.2017 passed by Deputy Collector, Shahganj, Jaunpur cancelling the license of the fair price shop of the petitioner and also assailing the order dated 1.6.2018 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi and for a direction to the respondents to supply the commodities of the fair price shop of the petitioner.
At the very outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that similar controversy has also been raised before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Single No.4114 of 2014 (Arif Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and the said writ petition was allowed on 23.10.2017 and as such it is contended that similar direction may be passed in this writ petition also. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 23.10.2017 is quoted as under:-
".........Main grievance of the petitioner is that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and copy of inquiry report was also not supplied to him. It is further stated that the Supply Clerk has got no authority to inspect the fair price shop of the petitioner, which is clear violation of principal of Rule 22 of Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004, as per the said order, the Food Inspector, the Competent authority, the Senior Supply Inspector or Supply Inspector are the competent authority, who can inspect the fair price shop, therefore, the Food Clerk is not a authority to inspect the shop. This apart, it is also stated that the inquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to him as provided in Government Order dated 29th July, 2004 and without giving proper opportunity of hearing and supplying the inquiry report, the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled, which is violation of principal of natural justice.
To substantiate his argument a case law report in 2017 (35) LCD 128; Thakur Prasad V. State of U.P. & others, has been cited, wherein it is held as under:
"10. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 has held that in case, after suspension of the agreement to run fair price shop, the authority decides to hold an inquiry for cancellation of the agreement then that requires full fledged inquiry, which, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013, decided on 28.11.2014) and Smt. Santara Devi vs. State of U.P. and others (2016(2) ADJ 70), means the service of the charge-sheet, inquiry report, statements of the cardholders/complainants, copy of the complaints and other supporting materials which are to be relied upon in support of the charges levelled against the fair price shop agent.
11. In view of the fact that neither the copy of the charge-sheet nor inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner meaning thereby there was no inquiry as intended in the government order and interpreted by this Court in the case of Puran Singh (supra).
12. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion that in absence of the formal inquiry as desired, the impugned orders dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) Varanasi Region Varanasi as well as order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Shahganj, District Jaunpur cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
It is apparent from the record that the fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Supply Clerk of Nanpara without any authority and on the basis of its inquiry report, the licence of fair price shop in question was first suspended and thereafter without giving copy of inquiry report and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the licence of his fair price shop was cancelled.
In view of above fact and to my view, the action taken by the authority concerned is not in accordance with law, hence, order impugned dated 09.06.2014 and 07.07.2012 are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 09.06.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Appeal No.304/67(Arif Khan versus State of U.P. & others) and order dated 03.07.2012 passed by Up Ziladhikari Nanpara, District - Bahraich are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara to pass afresh order in this regard after supplying the copy of inquiry report and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible."
Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the contention raised by learned Standing Counsel.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Collector concerned to pass fresh order in this regard after supplying the copy of enquiry report and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 SP/