Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34106 of 2015 Petitioner :- Sattyaveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Sinha,Krishna Dev Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Pal Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Joint-Commissioner (Food and Supplies), Meerut Region, Meerut and the order dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the prescribed authority, Anoopshhar, Bulandshahr whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled.
By means of an order dated 6.7.2012 the fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended and as many as four charges were levelled against the petitioner on account of non-distribution of scheduled commodities including kerosene oil to APL card-holders for months together, distribution was not entered in distribution register and was made fraudulently to give a color of regular and proper distribution of scheduled commodities. The allegations against the petitioner came to be made on the basis of the statement recorded by the Niab Tehsildar, on 30.6.2012 while holding an enquiry in the matter, of alleged complaints of various ration-card holders. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 22nd August, 2012 and along with the reply petitioner also submitted the statements of various villagers/ ration-card holders of the village in which they have admitted that the scheduled commodities were being properly distributed and on fixed prices and that there were no irregularities and/ or illegalities committed by the present petitioner.
The prescribed authority considered the reply/ explanation of the petitioner dated 22nd August, 2012 and also considered the material placed before it. The prescribed authority also considered the statements of the villagers which were submitted to it by the present petitioner. After evaluating the statement of fact and the copy of the statements submitted by the petitioner before the prescribed authority and the verification of the records and replies, the prescribed authority in its ultimate analysis found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges and, hence, cancelled the fair price shop license.
The appellate authority concurred with the findings of the prescribed authority and accordingly dismissed the revision.
The main argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was, in fact, subjected to utter harassment and the example given is that on account of an earlier order, on the basis of similar complaints, the fair prince shop was cancelled in the past sbut in the ultimate order passed in appeal dated 17.8.2011, the order canceling of the fair prince shop license dated 18.4.2011 was set aside and the petitioner's fair prince shop license was restored. The argument is that by changing the name of the complainants, the petitioner was again put to unnecessary harassment. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted the requisite documents to the prescribed authority for proper and fair assessment of the records and he further submits that the statements of the villagers that were recorded and submitted before the prescribed authority sufficiently demonstrated that the petitioner had not been guilty of any irregular or illegal distribution of scheduled essential commodities or that the petitioner had charged higher price than the fixed one. Thus it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be said, under any circumstances, to have put the ration-card holders to any unnecessary harassment or hassels while distributing the essential commodities.
Per contra the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel is that the prescribed authority has properly considered the statement of facts submitted by the present petitioner in his explanation and also the distribution and supply register produced by him. He further submits that the prescribed authority has gone into the statements of the ration-card holders given to the prescribed authority as well as to the inspecting team/ enquiry officer while the enquiry officer prepared and submitted an enquiry report on the basis of which the suspension order was passed.
Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently urged that once the petitioner has been found guilty of distribution of scheduled commodities to the various ration-card holders without getting those entries made in the ration-card it can safely be presumed that the petitioner has made entries on his own in the distribution register and further the signatures have also been found of the recipients on the register in the same handwriting and, therefore, it cannot be said that the findings recorded against the petitioner are in any manner perverse.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having heard their arguments across bar and having perused the records, I find that one thing is admitted to the petitioner that petitioner was distributing to many of the ration-card holders the essential commodities without getting their cards presented before him at the time of distribution of scheduled commodities and without making any endorsement on ration card or making entry in the distribution register as sale. In the present case the scheduled commodities were not being properly distributed and at times not at all distributed to the ration-card holders. This findings of fact that have come to be recorded by the prescribed authority are based upon the documents presented before it.
Counsel for the petitioner could not, in any manner before this Court, establish that the findings recorded by the petitioner is in any manner perverse. This Court finds that the order framing the charges against the petitioner carried specific names of different ration-card holders. In charge no. 3 specific allegation of non-distribution of commodity was levelled with reference to those very specific card-holders who had made complaint and the reply submitted by the petitioner that a particular card- holder was a man who keep bullying the petitioner despite the petitioner's persistent demand for the presentation of the ration-card he never presented the same, cannot be applied generally in respect of all the ration-card holders. Even explanation afforded was not only devoid of merits but also misplaced.
Under the circumstances the findings of fact recorded by the prescribed authority and concurred by the appellate authority need no interference.
Writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Nadeem Ahmad