By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.8.2007 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. 289 of 2006 passed by respondent no. 2.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders dated 31.8.2007 and 4.9.2007 passed by the respondent no. 1 & 2.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his fair price shop situated at Village Azampur Garahwa, Block Amauli, District Fatehpur.
Petitioner was allotted a fair price shop for village Azampur Garahwa Block Amauli, District Fatehpur. Certain complaints were made levelling allegations against the petitioner while functioning as licence holder of the fair price shop. Notice was issued to the petitioner and he was asked to submit his reply. Allegations against the petitioner were that he did not distribute the essential commodities to the ration card holders regularly; he has been charging Rs. 12-15 per litre on the sale of kerosene oil. As a consequence the charge sheet was served and his license was put under suspension. In reply to the charge sheet petitioner submitted his reply on 26.6.2006 denying the allegations made against him. On receipt of the reply another communication was addressed to the petitioner in which he was asked to produce the Stock Register which he has failed to do despite being asked to do. In his reply, petitioner denied the allegations as stated against him but did not produce the Stock Register as directed by the Prescribed Authority. He submitted an explanation that the official record in the shape of Stock Register, details of sales affected has been lost as such he could not produce the same. On receipt of the reply, Prescribed Authority recorded that despite opportunity being given to the petitioner to produce the record, he has failed to do so. On this it was concluded that the petitioner has nothing to say and as a consequence his licence has been cancelled. Appeal thereof has also been dismissed. Hence this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The short grievance of the petitioner is that an ex-parte enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was not allowed to participate in the said proceedings. His grievance is that no fair enquiry in the matter has been conducted and the explanation of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reasons.
Be that as it may, reasonable opportunity contemplates the following requirement:-
a) nature of charges sought to be proved against the person must be disclosed;
b) he must be given opportunity of contesting allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet;
c) if the charges are not accompanied by supportive evidence then the same may be proved by leading evidence in this behalf;
d) where the charge sheet is accompanied by supportive evidence then explanation be sought from the person to rebut the said evidence and;
e) where the supportive evidence is based on record no witnesses are required to be examined in this behalf.
Principles of rule of natural justice requires that a person is required to be heard before any order is passed. Obligation on the authorities is only to provide an opportunity to the dealer to submit his explanation to the charges levelled against him. If the dealer fails to comply with the direction of the authorities he cannot be said to have not been heard in the matter. If he fails to submit his explanation as also such documents as required by the authorities then the authorities are well within their right to pass appropriate orders. In the present case allegations against the petitioner were that he has not distributed the essential commodities to the card holders for which the only proof which can be provided by him is the Stock Register and other documents which reflects that such a distribution has been effected. Once he fails to produce the record irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the allegations against him are correct. Specific directions were issued to the petitioner to produce the record which he failed to do.
In the circumstances, in my opinion there is no requirement to order full fledge enquiry in the matter as the proceedings are summary in nature. However, fair price shop is meant for distribution of essential commodities to the poor at reasonable prices. Charging excess amount for the essential commodities, committing irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities and black marketing frustrate the very purpose of the licence granted to run the fair price shop. Every decision cannot be brought within the ambit of rules of natural justice unless it is shown by the parties that by non observance of the said rules prejudice will be caused to him. On his failure to produce the record nothing more was required to be proved by the Prescribed Authority as this record would lead to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner has distributed the Essential Commodities to the card holders or not. This was the clinching evidence which would determine the fate of the proceedings and on his failure to produce the record the order of cancellation cannot be questioned merely on the ground that no enquiry was conducted. The rules of natural justice is not a ritual which is required to be performed. It must be put into operation only if from the facts it is concluded that non observing of the said rule will prejudice the petitioner. His failure to produce the record itself is sufficient indication that he had no explanation to offer in this behalf.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no force in the instant writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any costs.