Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62430 of 2014 Petitioner :- Vansh Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B. Lal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(ORAL) Order on Impleadment Application No. 215310 of 2016 This impleadment application has been filed by one Sikandar, son of Bechu praying for impleadment as respondent No. 4 on the ground that after cancellation of fair price shop of the petitioner, he has been allotted the fair price shop and he may therefore be heard.
A subsequent allottee has no right to be heard. The impleadment application is rejected.
Order on the writ petition This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.06.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mirzapur cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner and the order dated 28.10.2014 passed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies), Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur rejecting his appeal.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were ex-parte. On Tehsil Divas, a complaint was given by some villagers on 15.01.2013 and a joint inspection team was constituted thereafter on 05.02.2013, which visited the village. The petitioner was not present as he was in jail. The Gram Pradhan was also not present as he was hospitalized. Statements of villagers were recorded behind the back of the petitioner complaining against short weighting of Scheduled Commodities by the petitioner and even non-distribution for months together. In pursuance of the inquiry report submitted by the joint inspection team, a suspension order was issued on 11.02.2013. In pursuance of the show cause notice mentioning in detail the complaints made by various categories of Card-holders, the petitioner could not submit his reply as the petitioner had fallen ill and was hospitalized for jaundice. The petitioner submitted an application asking for one month's time/Medical Leave. Since, the petitioner was advised further bed rest by his doctor, the petitioner again submitted an application dated 18.04.2013 asking for ten days' time. Still the petitioner did not feel well enough to file his reply. Ignoring the Medical Leave applications and without conducting any further inquiry, the impugned order of cancellation has been passed on 27.06.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out in detail the order of cancellation dated 27.06.2013.
From the facts mentioned therein, it is evident that the Licensing Authority had taken into account the applications for Medical Leave submitted by the petitioner on 03.06.2013 praying for another ten days' time to file his reply to the notice dated 06.02.2013. Even after passing of ten days' further Medical Leave, the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice. The Licensing Authority faced with the situation of non- cooperation by the petitioner in the conduct of independent inquiry against the allegation of irregularities in distribution of essential commodities, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was avoiding such inquiry altogether. Taking into account the report submitted on the basis of on the spot inspection carried out in the village, the allegations not being subsequently controverted despite opportunity being given to the petitioner, the irregularities complained of were presumed to be truly complained of, the order of cancellation has thereafter been passed on 27.06.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further indicated page nos. 59 and 60 of the writ petition to argue that he has again been issued a Medical Certificate on 29.06.2013 by a doctor saying that he was suffering from jaundice and therefore, advised complete bed rest w.e.f. 11.06.2013 upto 30.06.2013.
However, from a perusal of the pleadings on record, it is evident that such Medical Certificate advising further bed rest as aforesaid is dated 29.06.2013. The petitioner in fact sent the same by registered post also on 29.06.2013 i.e. after the order of cancellation has already been passed on 27.06.2013.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Licensing Authority, the petitioner had approached the Commissioner Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur in appeal. The Commissioner on examination of record has also come to the conclusion that since, the suspension order along with show cause notice was received by the petitioner and thereafter, a reminder was also issued to the petitioner, still the petitioner did not choose to file his reply, it was rightly presumed that he had noting to say in his defence. The Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Licensing Authority cancelling the fair price shop licence.
Having passed the order of the Licensing Authority carefully, this Court is of the opinion that the applications submitted for Medical Leave by the petitioner were duly considered by the Licensing Authority. A total of 40 days' leave was prayed for initially by means of two applications. Thus, time lapsed even thereafter the petitioner did not submit any reply.
It is settled law that despite opportunity being granted when a litigant does not choose to submit a reply, he cannot turn around and challenge the order passed by the Authorities as being violative of principles of natural justice.
There is no factual or legal infirmity in the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Sazia