Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2548 (ALL)

Krishna Kumar v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2010-08-19

SANJAY MISRA

body2010
Sanjay Misra, J.:- Heard Sri B.D. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be a fair price shop dealer of village Lohepar, Siswa Bazar, Tehsil Nichlaul, District Maharajganj and is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2006 (annexure 2) passed by the respondent no. 3 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj whereby his fair price shop has been cancelled as also the appellate order dated 1.12.2007 (annexure1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Food and Supply, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur whereby his appeal has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer and he has been falsely implicated by making allegations that he had indulged in black marketing of foodgrains more particularly 55 bags of sugar. He submits that against the order of suspension dated 4.6.2005 the petitioner had given his reply specifically to the charges and when they were not considered the appellate court has set aside the earlier order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and remanded the matter back for reconsideration by taking into account the explanation given by the petitioner. He submits that the impugned order has only reaffirmed the earlier order of cancellation and hence the reply has not been considered and therefore the order of cancellation as also the appellate order require to be set aside. 4. In so far as the submission of the petitioner that his reply to the show cause notice has not been considered is concerned the show cause notice had made as many as six imputations against the petitioner of black marketing of sugar, wheat and rice. In the reply submitted by the petitioner he has neither given any explanation to the 55 bags of sugar seized from his possession on a raid conducted on 31.5.2005 nor he has produced any documents to disprove the charge of black marketing. The petitioner does not deny that in the raid dated 31.5.2005 fifty five bags of sugar were seized from him and F.I.R. was lodged under various sections of the IPC and Essential Commodities Act. He was taken into custody and was subsequently granted bail. Consequently the factum of seizer of 55 bags of sugar from his possession on 31.5.2005 has not been denied. 5. He was taken into custody and was subsequently granted bail. Consequently the factum of seizer of 55 bags of sugar from his possession on 31.5.2005 has not been denied. 5. The explanation given by the petitioner as contained in annexure 4 to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner has replied to the imputations in a very vague manner by saying that he has not indulged in black marketing of foodgrains but has been distributing the foodgrains to the card holders as required by him. There is no explanation in the entire reply of the petitioner relating to seizer of 55 bags of sugar from his possession particularly when his entitlement to obtain sugar monthly is seven quintals. In the absence of any reply regarding the seized sugar it is apparent that the petitioner has not given any explanation for being found in possession of 55 bags of sugar on 31.5.2005. 6. When he filed his appeal he has taken grounds relating to seizer of 55 bags of sugar from him but all the grounds are to the effect that since he is alloted only seven quintals of sugar per month therefore 55 bags of sugar could not have been recovered from him. The said is not a reply to the actual physical seizer of 55 bags of sugar made from him on 31.5.2005. The appellate authority has considered the ground of the appeal of the petitioner and has found that the same was not satisfactory inasmuch as there is no explanation at all as to how he came in possession of 55 bags of sugar when only seven quintals of sugar are his entitlement per month. In the absence of any denial of seizer of the sugar or any evidence the explanation of the petitioner is not only vague but has given no explanation for being in possession of 55 bags of sugar. 7. There is an averment in the impugned orders that this sugar was purchased by the petitioner from the neighbouring fair price shop for sale in the black market. Learned counsel has submitted that this fact has not been proved against the petitioner. 7. There is an averment in the impugned orders that this sugar was purchased by the petitioner from the neighbouring fair price shop for sale in the black market. Learned counsel has submitted that this fact has not been proved against the petitioner. In so far as the aforesaid issue is concerned the impugned order has presumed that the petitioner has come into possession of 55 bags of sugar by acquiring it from other fair price shop owner because the sugar seized was only meant for distribution from fair price shops and the petitioner's monthly quota is only seven quintals. It was not the explanation of the petitioner that the monthly quota was not distributed and after several months the petitioner came to be in possession of 55 bags of sugar. Consequently no error can be found in the impugned order whereby the fair price shop has been cancelled and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed. 9. No order is passed as to costs.