Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1076 (ALL)

BHUDEO SHARMA v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-02

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2009
( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. D. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. ( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders passed by respondent dated 18. 7. 2005, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, 14. 9. 2005, Annexure-9 to the writ petition and the order dated 27. 2. 2006 passed by respondent no. 2, Annexure-11 to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner who is a licensee of a fair price shop, his license was suspended by order dated 18. 7. 2005 by respondent no. 3 leveling certain charges that distribution of the Sampurna Gramni Rojgar Yojana stock was not properly distributed for the month of Feb. 2002. Further various allegations against the petitioner regarding distribution of the goods dated 15. 4. 2002, 17. 7. 2002, 31. 3. 2003, 16. 11. 2003 and 12. 11. 2003 have been leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply on 21. 7. 2005 and has submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioner for the year 2002 to 2004 are not correct because unless and until it is verified that the last month allocation has been distributed properly to the villagers and it has been verified by the competent authority, no further allotment will be made, but the competent authority has not considered the same and cancelled the license of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal and that appeal too has been dismissed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Government Order namely U. P. Scheduled Commodities Suspension Order dated 20. 12. 2004. In support of the aforesaid Government Order learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Clause 21 (6) the monthly allotment or allocation of the food grains cannot be made unless and until the petitioners monthly allocation has been verified that it has been properly distributed. 12. 2004. In support of the aforesaid Government Order learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Clause 21 (6) the monthly allotment or allocation of the food grains cannot be made unless and until the petitioners monthly allocation has been verified that it has been properly distributed. Clause 21 (6) of the aforesaid Control Order is being quoted below: " (6) Monthly allocation of food grains, sugar, kerosene and other scheduled commodities shall be supplied to the agent only and that only on receipt of a certificate issued by the concerning Vigilance Committee, Administrative Committee duly countersigned by the supply or Senior Supply Inspector or Village Development Officer of the area, clearly mentioning that prior months allocations have been distributed by the agent in accordance with rules. " ( 5 ) TAKING support of the aforesaid Government Order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges of 2002 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of cancellation of the shop of the petitioner. The appellate authority has also not considered the same. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Gujrat High Court reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) 1549 (Guj.) Ashok Ratilal Parmar Vs. State of Gujrat. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in such a situation the Government cannot exercise the discretion to cancel the shop on the principle of doctrine of reasonable period of time. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that this is a special scheme introduced by the Central Government. In such a situation whether on the aforesaid scheme the Government Order relied upon by the petitioner will be applicable or not. Further submission has been made that from the perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 6. 7. 2005, it does not appear that the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents before the Competent Authority showing therein that the prior distribution has been done or not. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned Standing counsel submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground. ( 7 ) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned Standing counsel submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground. ( 7 ) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the show cause notice and order of cancellation it appears that the major charges against the petitioner are regarding the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 and regarding the distribution of SGRY wheat. The petitioner has annexed the relevant record and copy of the sale register for the years 2002-03 and 2005 showing therein the names of the persons as well as the thumb impressions to this effect regarding distribution of the goods. This goes to show that these documents annexed to writ petition appear to be genuine. On the bare perusal it cannot be held that this document has been manufactured. ( 8 ) AS regards the submission of the learned Standing Counsel regarding the applicability of the Control Order of 2004, in my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded back to the competent authority to decide it as fresh after affording full opportunity to the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by respondent dated 18. 7. 2005, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, 14. 9. 2005, Annexure-9 to the writ petition and the order dated 27. 2. 2006 passed by respondent no. 2, Annexure-11 to the writ petition are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to respondent no. 3 to decide regarding the applicability of the Government Order 2004 in the particular scheme and the respondent will pass the orders on merit after considering the relevant record submitted by the petitioner after affording full opportunity to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. No order is passed as to costs. .