Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 399 (ALL)

NAKLI SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-02-01

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
Judgment Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. None responded for the respondent No. 4. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 16.5.2006 passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 10.1.2007 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure Nos. 3 and 5 ) whereby the petitioner’s fair price shop has been cancelled on the ground of irregularities in making distribution of kerosene to various ration card holders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 has himself arrived at the conclusion that 80 liters kerosene was found in the stock on verification. There was no allegation of any shortage in the stock. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that only allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had not distributed kerosene to various ration card holders. It was also submitted that the petitioner’s reply was that most of the card holders did not visit the shop to take the kerosene and some of them had either died or were living else where. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.3 has not recorded any finding to the effect that the various ration card holders visited the petitioner’s shop to purchase kerosene but they were not given. In absence of such finding, the cancellation of the shop was not justified, specially when there was no shortage in the stock. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the appellate authority also failed to give due consideration to the point involved in the matter and dismissed the appeal summarily without applying his mind to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that only charge against the petitioner was that he failed to make distribution of kerosene to ration card holders and on inquiry this fact was found proved. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders and other materials including the affidavit and counter affidavit. I am of the view that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have much substance. There is no allegation that there was any shortage in the stock and on verification 80 liters kerosene was found in the stock. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders and other materials including the affidavit and counter affidavit. I am of the view that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have much substance. There is no allegation that there was any shortage in the stock and on verification 80 liters kerosene was found in the stock. Neither the respondent No. 3 nor the respondent No. 2 recorded any specific finding that the petitioner committed any irregularity in not supplying kerosene to ration card holders despite their visit to the shop for purchasing the kerosene. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were duty bound to see whether or not the ration card holders visited the petitioner’s shop to purchase the kerosene. It was also their duty to see whether there was any deliberate default on the part of the petitioner to supply kerosene to such visitors. In absence of any finding on these two questions the cancellation of the petitioner’s shop cannot be upheld. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.5.2006 and 10.1.2007 (annexure Nos. 3 and 5 respectively) are quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made herein before and pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are however directed to restore the petitioner’s fair price shop immediately which will be subject to final decision to be rendered by the respondent No. 3. ————