Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.9.2013 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate allotment of the fair price shop which stood in the name of her husband Sri Parashuram, who died on 3.11.2012 has been rejected.
The petitioner is the widow of Late Parashuram, who was the licensee of the fair price shop of Village Ahirauli, Post-Nipaniya, Tehsil-Nautanwa, District Maharajganj. It is stated that Parashuram died on 3.11.2012 and after his death, the petitioner moved an application dated 9.11.2012 for compassionate allotment of the fair price shop under Clause-10 (Jha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. The said application has been rejected on the ground that on 22.8.2012, the Gram Pradhan and some villagers have given complaint that Late Parashuram was not distributing the essential commodities properly and on which, an inquiry has been directed. On 23.9.2013, the Supply Inspector has made the inquiry from the card holders and recorded their statements and the said card holders have stated that Late Parashuram was not supplying essential commodities properly. On these facts, it has been inferred that the reputation of Late Parashuram was not good.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the copy of the complaint nor the inquiry report has been confronted or provided to the petitioner.
In the writ petition, it is categorically stated that neither the licence of the fair price shop of Late Parashuram has been suspended nor has been cancelled during his life-time, nor any complaint has been made. These averments have not been denied in the counter affidavit. It is further stated that the alleged inquiry was made after ten months from the date of the death of Late Parashuram. At page -11 of the counter affidavit, it is recorded that Late Parashuram was not supplying the goods properly and the signatures of 14 persons have been obtained. In fact, it is not the statements of the villagers. It is further submitted on page -13 of the counter affidavit that the signatures of seven persons have been taken, who stated that Late Parashuram has distributed the goods properly and the signatures of seven persons have been taken below on the said statements. Therefore, the alleged inquiry has no relevance and cannot be made basis for arriving to the conclusion that the reputation of Late Parashuram was not good.
Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the impugned order.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
Clause -10 (Jha) of Government Order dated 17.8.2002 read as follows :-
Þ¼>½ ;fn nqdkunkj vPNh [;kfr dk gks rks mldh e`R;q ds mijkUr nqdku dk vkoaVu mlds vkfJr dks djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkfJr dk rkRi;Z iRuh] iq= rFkk vfookfgr iq=h ls gSAß Admittedly, the licence of the fair price shop of Late Parashuram has neither been suspended nor has been cancelled during his lifetime, nor any kind of notice has been issued to him.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that one Kanti Devi wrote a letter dated 22.8.2012 to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj, on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj directed the Supply Inspector to make an inquiry. The perusal of the letter dated 22.8.2012, which is C.A.-3, reveals that no specific detail of irregularities has been given. The vague allegation has only been made. The alleged statement has been recorded by the Supply Inspector on 23.9.2013. In fact, no individual statement has been recorded. The statement has been written on the top of the paper and thereafter, the signatures have been obtained, fourteen persons alleged to have been stated against Late Parashuram and seven persons have stated in favour of Late Parashuram. The alleged inquiry was not made during the lief-time of Late Parashuram and therefore, we are of the opinion that such inquiry has no relevance and cannot be relied upon against the petitioner.
Moreover, we find that neither the copy of the complaint nor the inquiry report has ever been confronted or provided to the petitioner and therefore, no reliance can be placed on such inquiry. Apart from the alleged complaint and inquiry report, there is no material on record against Late Parashuram.
On the facts and circumstances, we find that there is no material that the reputation of Late Parashuram was bad and therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate allotment of the fair price shop under Clause-10 (Jha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002.
In the circumstances, the order dated 24.9.2013 is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 24.9.2013 is set-aside.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj is directed to allot the fair price shop to the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of four weeks from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 20.11.2014 Monika