Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49023 of 2015 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabha Shanker Pandey,Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Ram Raj Prajapati Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.K. Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the orders dated 11.8.2014 and 3.7.2015 passed by competent authority for cancellation of fair price shop license of the petitioner are under challenge.
The cancellation order was passed on 11.8.2014 by SDM, Soraon, Allahabad with the specific findings recorded therein that on 24.4.2014, the fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended on the ground that he did not deposit the requisite money for lifting the food-grains and sugar as per the rosters by 22nd April, 2014. He was required to furnish his reply within a period of 15 days. The said letter was received by the petitioner on 25.4.2014. However, no reply whatsoever had been given despite repeated reminders given on 31st May, 2014 and 18th July, 2014, which were served upon the petitioner on 2.6.2014 and 18.7.2014. Last opportunity was given to the petitioner vide communication dated 6th August, 2014. The petitioner did not submit any explanation despite that. The communication dated 6th August, 2014 was received by the petitioner on 7.8.2014. In view of the fact that petitioner did not furnish any explanation to the charges mentioned in the suspension order, the cancellation order was passed. The appellate authority has also affirmed the order with specific finding recorded therein that the petitioner did not submit any reply despite repeated reminders. In the memo of appeal, the defence has been taken by the petitioner that he was ill, as such, he could not deposit the money. The order dated 24.4.2014 and the cancellation order dated 11.4.2014 have been passed in haste without adhering to the principles of natural justice.
However, neither the date of illness of the petitioner nor the nature of his illness has been mentioned in the memo of appeal. No document has been brought on record before the appellate court to substantiate that the petitioner was ill on 22.4.2014 and no plausible explanation had been offered by the petitioner before the appellate court as to why he did not furnish any reply to the suspension order.
For the first time in the present writ petition, certain prescriptions have been brought on record to state that the petitioner was ill on the date when he was required to deposit the money.
The explanation given by the petitioner in the present writ petition is a lame excuse for non compliance of the directions of the competent authority. In any case, there is no infirmity in the orders impugned.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 Sanjeev