Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1122 (ALL)

Hridesh Singh v. Commissioner, Basti and Another

2012-05-10

A.P.SAHI

body2012
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's fair price shop licence was cancelled after an inspection was made on 4.7.2007. The cancellation was preceded by a suspension and a show cause notice dated 23.11.2007. A copy of the show cause notice is annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was categorically called upon to submit his written statement along with the records of the previous six months for distribution of essential commodities, within a week of the receipt of the said notice. The reply submitted by the petitioner dated 29.11.2007 on record indicates that the petitioner submitted his explanation in writing without enclosing the documents as was required in the show cause notice. In paragraph 14 of the reply, it was stated that as and when the petitioner will be further called upon in the inquiry, he shall produce the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the licence has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and no inquiry was held in respect of the allegations as such the impugned order is vitiated. The petitioner filed an appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.7.2008. As a matter of fact the authority ought to have provided opportunity and further investigated the matter in order to ascertain the allegations made in the show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Hukum Singh vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2008 (8) ADJ 27 to contend that the show cause notice is absolutely vague and superficial and, therefore, the order has proceeded on the vagueness of the said notice and is otherwise in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 51989 of 2008 decided on 22.7.2011. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the learned Standing counsel submitted that the petitioner had indulged in distribution of fair price commodities on the basis of fake cards, as such the cancellation order is perfectly justified. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the learned Standing counsel submitted that the petitioner had indulged in distribution of fair price commodities on the basis of fake cards, as such the cancellation order is perfectly justified. The petitioner failed to adduce evidence in respect of his claim and defense and therefore it cannot be said that the impugned orders are perverse. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the show cause notice which is annexure-5 to the writ petition dated 23.11.2007 clearly called upon the petitioner to submit the entire documents of the preceding 6 months. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had furnished the said documents throughout the proceedings before the authority. The petitioner, in turn made a statement in his reply that as and when further inquiry is held he shall submit his documents. This reply of the petitioner was absolutely irrelevant when the notice categorically demanded document along with the explanation. In the absence of any such document having been tendered by the petitioner, there was no occasion to hold any further inquiry. In the circumstances, it is the petitioner who failed to respond to the show cause notice in the terms as prayed for. The judgment in the case of Hukum Singh (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner categorically records in paragraph 13 that the show cause notice issued therein had called upon the petitioner, that in case he intends to produce any defense oral or documentary he can do so on any working day to the show cause notice issued in that case. The facts of that case are therefore clearly distinguishable from the present one, as such the ratio of the said judgment cannot be pressed into service herein. The petitioner had not provided any relevant documents, therefore, he cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. In the circumstances the reasons recorded by authority or by the appellate authority cannot be said to be perverse. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. _____________