Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 379 (ALL)

DHARAMPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P

2006-02-08

PRADEEP KANT, RAJIV SHARMA

body2006
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the District supply Officer was not having authority to cancel the license of the fair price shop of the petitioner under the Govt. Order dated 3rd July, 1990. The competent authority is the District Magistrate for such cancellation. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner who was running fair price shop has been elected as Pradhan of the village. It has also not been disputed that in the said Govt. Order, there is a provision of clause 4. 7 which provides that if a person who is Pradhan or Up Pradhan, no resolution shall be in his favour or even in favour of their family members, for allotment of the fair price shop. It is also admitted to the petitioner that this license was granted by the District Supply officer. The only plea which has been raised is that the District Supply Officer has taken recourse to the provisions of the Govt. Order dated 3rd July, 1990 which prescribes a specific authority i. e. the District Magistrate for cancelling the license and, therefore, the District Supply Officer was not the competent authority to cancel the license. ( 4 ) WE have considered the aforesaid arguments and have perused the clause 4. 7 and 7 of the said Govt. Order. Clause 4. 7 is regarding Pradhan and his family members who cannot be allowed to have license and clause 7 is a provision who permits the District Magistrate to suspend or cancel the license of the fair price shop, in case there is any discrepancy or irregularity committed in the matter of lifting or distribution of the essential commodities, either on complaint or suo motu. The present order has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of clause 7 of the aforesaid Govt. Order, as the license has not been cancelled on the charge of any irregularity or illegality having been committed either in lifting the quota or distribution. The present order has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of clause 7 of the aforesaid Govt. Order, as the license has not been cancelled on the charge of any irregularity or illegality having been committed either in lifting the quota or distribution. ( 5 ) IT has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after being elected as Pradhan cannot continue as licensee of the fair price shop but his argument is that such order can be passed by the District magistrate only. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid admitted ineligibility of the petitioner to continue as pradhan, coupled with the fact that the license to the petitioner was granted by the District Supply Officer, who will have power to cancel the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clause Act, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order nor find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. .