Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1920 (ALL)

RAMHIT v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-08-11

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard Sri O.P. Chaube, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Affidavits between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of at this stage. 3. From the materials brought on record, it transpires that the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop licence on the allegations of irregularities and directed the Supply Inspector, Baberu to take possession of the stock and distribution registeres of petitioner’s fair price shop relating to the month of November, 2006 and inquire into the matter and submit his report so that further action be taken against the petitioner. Upon being served with the suspension order, the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent No. 3 on 14.12.2006 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) with a prayer for revoking the suspension if his fair price shop licence, thereafter, the respondent No. 3 without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity of hearing and without supplying him with a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the District Supply Officer and erroneously treating the order of suspension to be the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop agreement by his order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) observing that despite being directed to show-cause the petitioner failed to submit any explanation before him and hence, the allegations of irregularities which were made against the petitioner were premumed to be true. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda which was numbered as Appeal No. 38.2006-07 and dismissed by him by his order dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). 4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 7.12.2007 and 26.12.2006 (Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 5. 4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 7.12.2007 and 26.12.2006 (Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 having illegally cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop agreement without issuing any show-cause notice to him and without affording him any opportunity of hearing and without supplying him with the copy of the inquiry report submitted against him by the District Supply Officer, the respondent No. 2 ought to have allowed the petitioner’s appeal but he also fell into the same error and illegally dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the absolutely illegal order of the respondent No. 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the respondent No. 3 committed a patent error of law in referring to the order of suspension as a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 and then proceeding to hold that the petitioner failed to submit any reply to the same and the failure of the appellate Court to rectify the mistake committed by the respondent No. 3 has vitiated the order of the appellate authority as well. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the impugned orders which are vitiated by gross misconstructions and misreading of the materials on record by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be sustained and are thus liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra learned Standing Counsel made his submissions in support of the impugned orders. 9. After having given thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record, I find that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner have force and the same are liable to be accepted. 10. A perusal of the order dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shows that by the said order the respondent No. 3 had merely suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop licence on the basis of certain complaints against him made by several card holders alleging irregularities by him in the distribution of essential commodities and had directed the District Supply Officer, Baberu to inquire into the matter and then submit his report. There is nothing in the said order which may indicate that by the said order the petitioner was directed by the respondent No. 3 to show-cause as to why his fair price shop licence be not cancelled on the allegations mentioned in the order of suspension and hence the petitioner could not have been expected to submit his explanation before the respondent No. 3 after being served with the order of suspension. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has failed to bring to the notice of this Court any document which may show that prior to cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop licence the respondent No. 3 had given any show-cause notice to the petitioner or afforded him any opportunity of hearing. 12. The appellate authority instead of scrutinizing the aforesaid aspect of the matter also illegally held the suspension order to be a show-cause notice and the representation filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 3 for revocation of the suspension of his fair price shop licence as his reply to the show-cause notice and affirmed the order of the licensing authority. 13. Thus, in view of the goregoing discussions, I have no hesitation in holding that both the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have proceeded in the matter upon an erroneous presumption that the petitioner had been noticed before his fair price shop licence was cancelled although from the perusal of the material on record, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that the cancellation of petitioner’s shop agreement was not preceeded by issuance of any show-cause notice to him. Since, the respondent No. 3 cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop licence in contravention of the principles of natural justice and the appellate authority failed to redeem the illegality committed by the licencing authority-respondent No. 3, the orders passed by them cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 14. The writ petition accordingly scceeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 7.12.2007 and 26.12.2006 (Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed. 15. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s fair price shop forthwith. It will, however, open to the respondent No. 3 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. ——————