Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3838 (ALL)

SANTARA DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-12-07

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 28.5.2012 by which her fair price shop license has been cancelled and the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner dismissing her appeal. 3. On the basis of some complaints of irregularities in distributing the essential commodities and on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the District Supply Inspector, the licence of the petitioner was suspended. Thereafter, an explanation from the petitioner was called and considering the same, the impugned order for cancelling the license was passed. 4. The procedure for holding an inquiry for cancelling the license of the fair price shop has been provided in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 read with U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004. 5. The aforesaid Government Order and Distribution Order came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in case of Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB). The Court considering para 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 held that it contemplates a fulfledged enquiry pursuant to the show-cause notice for cancellation and then a final decision in the matter. 6. The aforesaid decision was followed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 28.11.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013 and referring to paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh’s case his Lordship observed that a fulfledged enquiry is necessary before cancelling the agreement and it would require service of the charges, alongwith material in support of each charge, the information about the place and date of inquiry, the statements of persons on whose complaint inquiry was started or in a case of suo-motu inquiry, the statements of the persons appearing before the Enquiry Officer. 7. In other words it means that an independent inquiry before passing an order of cancellation of license to run a fair price shop is mandatory and a show-cause notice simplicitor is not sufficient to conform to the principles of natural justice. 8. It is obligatory upon the authorities to hold a fulfledged enquiry against the fair price shop dealer, after serving of the charge-sheet with regard to the date and place where the hearing will took place and to give an opportunity of hearing. 8. It is obligatory upon the authorities to hold a fulfledged enquiry against the fair price shop dealer, after serving of the charge-sheet with regard to the date and place where the hearing will took place and to give an opportunity of hearing. This is in addition to the show-cause notice issued for the purposes of suspension of the license of the fair price shop. This procedure does not appear to have been followed by the respondents in passing the impugned order. It does not appear from the record that any fulfledged enquiry was held as contemplated by the Full Bench decision on the basis of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. The petitioner was not even given any charge-sheet on the basis of any such inquiry report to enable him to submit his explanation or response. The petitioner was also not given information of any date of hearing in the matter. 9. The supply of the copy of the inquiry report if any is a sine qua non in furtherance of the principles of natural justice in cases where such an inquiry report forms the basis of the impugned order. Thus, the non supply of the same also vitiates the order. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order is not only violative of the procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 but is also in violation of the principle of natural justice which cannot be sustained in law. 11. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.5.2012 passed by Up Ziladhikari, Amroha and order dated 3.10.2012 passed by Commissioner (Khadya), Moradabad Division, Moradabad are hereby quashed. However, it will be open for the authorities to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders. 12. The writ petition is allowed. ———————