1. The petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gonda - respondent no.3 herein, by his order dated 11.04.2018, has cancelled the license of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Admin), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda - respondent no.2, by his order dated 13.07.2018. Both the said orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. On the complaint made by one Manoj Kumar regarding the alleged irregularities being committed by the petitioner in the distribution of the essential commodities, the Area Supply Inspector allegedly made a spot inspection, recorded the statement of 28 card holders / their family members present on the spot and submitted his report to the respondent no. 3 on 06.02.2018. On the basis of the said report, license of the petitioner was suspended by the respondent no. 3. By the same order the petitioner was required to submit his reply to the charges levelled against him within the time mentioned in the said order. A perusal of the suspension order cum show cause notice would show that it only contained the gist of statements alleged to have been made by 28 card holders.
3. On 14.03.2018 the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and denied the charges levelled against him. Alongwith his explanation, the petitioner submitted the affidavits of 18 card holders to show that the charges leveled against the him were unfounded. After receiving the petitioner's reply, respondent no. 3 accepted the affidavits filed by 14 card holders behind the back of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no.3, by his order dated 11.04.2018, cancelled the fair price shop license of the petitioner holding that the allegations made against the petitioner were proved. The order dated 11.04.2018 was passed without furnishing to the petitioner the copies of the affidavits filed by the witnesses and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine them. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the respondent no. 2 by his order dated 13.07.2018.
4. Sri Ram Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent no. 3 without following the procedure laid down in the Government order dated 29.07.2004. The counsel submits that neither the copies of the statements of the card holders alleged to have been recorded by the Area Supply Inspector nor a copy of the report submitted by him was furnished to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the affidavits filed by 14 card holders behind the back of the petitioner were also not made available to the petitioner and he was also not given any opportunity to cross examine them. The counsel submits that the cancellation order having been passed without holding any inquiry and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. He has further submitted that the order of respondent no. 3 was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, specifically on the aforesaid ground. However, the respondent no. 2 dismissed the petitioner's appeal without considering and recording any finding on the issues raised before him. Per contra the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 29.07.2004, laying down the procedure for suspending/ cancelling the fair price shop license/agreement. Paragraph nos. 2, 4, and 5 of the said Government Order being relevant are being quoted below:
"2. mDr i`"BHkwfe esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd xzkeh.k ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds fuyEcu @fujLrhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fuEu izfdz;k dk ikyu fd;k tk,A ¼1½ mfpr nj dh nqdku dk fuyEcu ek= fdlh O;fDr dh f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij ugha fd;k tk;A ;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ds fo:) fdlh lzksr ls f'kdk;r izkIr gksrh gS rks igys mldh izkjfEHkd tkap djk;h tk,A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa nqdkunkj ds fo:) ,slh xEHkhj vfu;ferrk,a izFke n`"V;k fl) gks jgh gksa ftuds vk/kkj ij nqdkunkj dh nqdku fujLr gksus dh lEHkkouk gks rHkh nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k tk; vkSj lkFk gh lkFk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk, fd mldh nqdku D;ksa u fujLr dj nh tk,A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa ik;k tk; fd vfu;ferrk bruh xEHkhj ugha gS fd nqdku ds fujLrhdj.k dh lEHkkouk gks rks dsoy dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;A fuyEcu vkns'[email protected] crkvksa uksfVl ,d Lihfdax vkMZj gksuk pkfg, rFkk mlesa izkjfEHkd tkap esa ik;h x;h mu lHkh vfu;ferrkvksa dk fooj.k gksuk pkfg, ftudk mRrj nqdkunkj ls visf{kr gksA ¼2½ ¼d½ [kk| foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa @ ftyk iz'kklu ds vf/kdkfj;ksa @vU; izkf/kd`r O;fDr;ksa }kjk mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkdfLed fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ;fn ik;k tkrk gS fd nqdkunkj }kjk dksbZ xEHkhj vfu;ferrk dh x;h gS rks Hkh nqdku dks fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼[k½ [kk| foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa @ ftyk iz'kklu ds vf/kdkfj;ksa @ vU; izkf/kd`r O;fDr;ksa }kjk ;fn nqdkunkj dksbZ vfu;fer dk;Z] forj.k esa xM+cM+h ;k vuqlwfpr oLrqvksa dh dkykcktkjh djrs gq, idM+k tkrk rks Hkh fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldrk gSA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nqdku ds fuyEcu dh fLFkfr esa Hkh Lihfdax vkMZj ls fuyEcu vkns'k tkjh fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa lHkh vfu;ferrkvksa dk mYys[k gksxk rFkk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk fd D;ksa u mldh nqdku fujLr dj nh tk;A 4- fuyfEcr dh x;h nqdkuksa ds fo:) tkap dh dk;Zokgh vf/kdre ,d ekg esa vfuok;Z :i ls iwjh dh tk;sxh rFkk tkap esa lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk iwjk ekSdk fn;k tk;sxkA lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og tkap esa viuk iwjk lg;ksx ns rkfd tkap dk dk;Z tYnh ls tYnh iwjk fd;k tk lds rFkk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsA ;fn nqdkunkj }kjk tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fn;k tk jgk gks vkSj tkap esa foyEc djus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gks rks nqdkunkj dks bl vk'k; dk Hkh uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk vkSj viuk i{k j[kus dk vfUre volj iznku fd;k tk;sxkA 5- tkap dh dk;Zokgh vf/kdre ,d ekg esa iw.kZ djds fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk vkSj xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij ,d Lihfdax vkMZj tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA bl vkns'k esa ;g Li"V mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;k vkSj mls lquk x;kA ;fn nqdkunkj us tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;k gks vkSj lquokbZ ds volj dk tkucw>dj mi;ksx u fd;k gks rks vfUre vkns'k esa bl ckr dk Hkh iwjk mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd nqdkunkj dks volj iznku fd;k x;k rFkk vfUre uksfVl fn;k x;k ijUrq mlus tkucw> dj volj dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k vkSj tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;kA"
(emphasis supplied)
7. As per clause 4 of the Government Order dated 29.07.2004, before cancelling the fair price shop license, the Competent Authority is obliged to issue a show cause notice containing the charges levelled against the licensee. The Competent Authority is required to pass a speaking order after holding an oral inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. As per the said Government order, in case the license holder is not cooperating in the inquiry, the Competent Authority is obliged to again issue a notice to that effect and afford a last opportunity to the license holder.
8. In Puran Singh v. State, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947, a Full Bench of this Court has held that paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the Government order dated 29.07.2004 contemplate a full fledged inquiry before the license/ agreement of a fair price shop is cancelled. The Full Bench has held that as per the Government order dated 29.07.2004 an opportunity of hearing is required before passing an order of cancellation.
9. In Writ - C No. 3611 of 2014, Sanjay Kumar v. State, following Puran Singh (Supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:
"The procedure for holding an inquiry for cancelling the licence of the fair price shop has been provided in the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 read with U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004.
The aforesaid Government Order and Distribution Order came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in case of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (3) ADJ 659 (FB). The Court considering para 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 held that it contemplates a full-fledged inquiry pursuant to the show cause notice for cancellation and then a final decision in the matter.
The aforesaid decision was followed by the learned Single Judge in his judgement and order dated 28.11.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013 and referring to paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh's case his Lordship observed that a full-fledged inquiry is necessary before cancelling the agreement and it would require service of the charges, along with material in support of each charge, the information about the place and date of inquiry, the statements of persons on whose complaint inquiry was started or in a case of suo-motu inquiry, the statements of the persons appearing before the Inquiry Officer.
In other words it means that an independent inquiry before passing an order of cancellation of licence to run a fair price shop is mandatory and a show cause notice simplicitor is not sufficient to conform to the principles of natural justice.
It is obligatory upon the authorities to hold a full-fledged inquiry against the fair price shop dealer, after serving of the charge sheet with regard to the date and place where the hearing will took place and to give an opportunity of hearing. This is in addition to the show cause notice issued for the purposes of suspension of the licence of the fair price shop."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In Laloo Singh vs. State, (2015) 6 All LJ 613 this Court has held that the cancellation of an agreement/license of a party is a serious business and cannot be taken lightly. In order to justify the action taken to cancel such an agreement/license, the authority concerned has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the rules/guidelines framed for the said purposes including the principles of natural justice.
11. This Court in Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (26) LCD 891 has held that where fair price shop license of a dealer is cancelled by placing reliance on the report of the Supply Inspector and the copy of the report is not furnished to the dealer, such an order is in contravention of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
14. In the present case, a perusal of the order dated 11.04.2018 would show that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the basis of the statements and affidavits filed by the card holders and that too without supplying copies of the said statements / affidavits to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine them. A copy of the report submitted by the Area Supply Inspector has also not been supplied to the petitioner. Moreover, in his order, the respondent no. 3 has not at all discussed the grounds urged by the petitioner in his reply in support of his defence. Admittedly, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without holding any inquiry, whatsoever.
15. In view of the settled legal position, the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop agreement / license is ostensibly in contravention of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. The Appellate Authority has also failed to rectify the error committed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and as such the order passed by the Appellate Authority is also liable to be set aside alongwith the order of the Competent Authority.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Admin) are hereby quashed.
17. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- November 26, 2019 Anupam-Pradeep/-