Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 532 (UTT)

Smt. Mahmooda Begum v. State of Uttarakhand

2007-10-29

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2007
Judgment By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03-07 -2007, passed by respondent no. 3, whereby the licence given to the petitioner to run the fair price shop is cancelled. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 30-08-2007, passed by respondent no. 2, the appellate authority, whereby the appeal against aforesaid order is dismissed by said authority. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was given a licence to run fair price shop in village Sikroda vide order dated 31-12-1998. Since then she was running the fair price shop for distributing essential commodities to the ration card holders. It is alleged that respondent no. 4, Village Pradhan, wanted to pressurize the petitioner to supply the commodities in excess of the quantity he is entitled. On 15-10-2005, Government of Uttaralkhand issued an order which provided that family members of Pradhan or U.P. Pradhan would not be given licence to run the fair price shop. Under said G.O., the word 'family' includes Pradhan / U.P. Pradhan, his / her spouse, unmarried daughter, mother, brother or any other members, who live with such person and use one kitchen. Petitioner along with her husband Arif Khan lives in House No.107 in village Sikroda, Block Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. One Atahar Khan, who is brother-in-law (Dewar) of the petitioner is Up Pradhan in the village. In the writ petition, it is stated that he is not member of the petitioner's family. A complaint was made against the petitioner that licence to run fair price shop given to her is against the aforesaid G.O., as Atahar Khan is member of the family of the petitioner. On the recommendation of the Additional District Magistrate on said complaint the District Supply Officer (respondent no. 3) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, which was duly replied by her. It is alleged that the District Supply Officer without appreciating the facts properly, cancelled the licence of the petitioner to run the fair price shop. Against said order dated 03-07-2007, passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner preferred an Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2006-07 before the Commissioner Garhwal Division, who also allegedly fell same error of law committed by respondent no. 3 and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. Against said order dated 03-07-2007, passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner preferred an Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2006-07 before the Commissioner Garhwal Division, who also allegedly fell same error of law committed by respondent no. 3 and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. but respondent no. 4 contested the writ petition and filed his counter affidavit. In said counter affidavit it has been admitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Sikroda with her husband in House No.107 of the village. However, it is denied that the petitioner's brother-in-law Atahar Khan (Dewar) lives separately from the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that earlier petitioner's husband Arif Khan used to run the fair price shop, who was found involved in mass irregularities in running the fair price shop and his licence was cancelled. Thereafter in 1998, the petitioner (wife of Sri Arif Khan) got the licence to run the fair price shop. In Para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that some 500 people submitted a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate regarding gross irregularities being committed by the petitioner in distribution of the essential commodities to the ration card holders. The inquiry was conducted in the matter by Nayab Tehsildar, Roorkee, who found the complaints made by the people to be correct and submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on 19-06-2007. the Sub Divisional Magistrate wrote a letter to the District Magistrate in the matter. Finally the matter was referred to the District Supply Officer and after giving show cause notice to the petitioner and considering his reply the impugned order canceling the licence was passed. It is vehemently denied in the counter affidavit that the answering respondent had any grudge against the petitioner or he ever wanted to pressurize her. Defending the impugned orders passed by respondent no. 3 and by the appellate authority (respondent no.2) it is stated that the orders passed suffer from no illegality. 5. A rejoinder affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which the averments made in the writ petition are reiterated. 6. Defending the impugned orders passed by respondent no. 3 and by the appellate authority (respondent no.2) it is stated that the orders passed suffer from no illegality. 5. A rejoinder affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which the averments made in the writ petition are reiterated. 6. Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which is copy of Government Order dated 15th October 2005. Clause 5 of said Government Order contains following provision- It is contended on behalf of petitioner that brother-in-law is not member of family as provided in aforesaid clause. And as such the petitioner's licence could not have been cancelled on that ground. In this connection, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's brother-in-law Atahar Khan lives in a separate House No.108 and merely on the ground that he is Up Pradhan, licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. 7. Had there been only the abovementioned ground explained by the petitioner it could have been said that the authorities were wrong in canceling the licence of the petitioner and in upholding the same. But the impugned orders show that apart from mentioning the fact that Atahar Khan, Up Pradhan, brother-in-law of the petitioner found living in the same house, it is also mentioned that the irregularities were being committed by the petitioner in running the fair price shop. It is further mentioned by the respondent authorities that when the authorities wanted to inspect, petitioner did not open the shop, which was found locked and gave an excuse that the registers of the stock distribution are lost for which she lodged the First Information Report. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 drew attention of this Court to Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit in which under Right To Information Act, information was given that no First Information Report regarding the loss of registers was lodged by the petitioner. Apart from this on behalf of the respondent no. 4 attention is also drawn to the copy of complaint made by the villagers against the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as part of Annexure 3 of the counter affidavit. This further corroborates the additional grounds mentioned in the impugned orders passed by respondents no. 2 and 3. Apart from this on behalf of the respondent no. 4 attention is also drawn to the copy of complaint made by the villagers against the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as part of Annexure 3 of the counter affidavit. This further corroborates the additional grounds mentioned in the impugned orders passed by respondents no. 2 and 3. As such this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders. 8. Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner in respect of the alleged irregularities mentioned in the complaint and the reply was sought only in respect of the allegation that petitioner belongs to the family of U.P Pradhan. Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit discloses that the petitioner was aware of the facts alleged against her and did make a reply to the authorities. She took an excuse of loss of record, which was not found to be true. As such it cannot be said that principles of natural justice not adhered to. 9. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the authorities as the same appear to have been passed after adhering to the principles of natural justice. In my opinion the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.