Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 538 (ALL)

RAMVIR v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-15

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bulandshahr and the appellate order dated 22.12.2016, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food) Meerut, Division - Meerut in appeal No. 28/2010. 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was a fair price shop agent of Village - Moodhibakapur, Pargana, Tehsil and District - Bulandshahr. On 12.8.2009 at about 11 a.m. an inspection of the fair price shop of the petitioner was made on certain information against him for certain illegalities. At the time of inspection it was found on the spot that in the back side of his shop in the Courtyard of his house the petitioner was taking out wheat from A.P.L. wheat bags and filling it in private bags. 42 Kattas measuring about 21 Quintals such wheat was found. That apart, 50 empty Kattas of A.P.L. bags bearing mark of the month of July and August were found besides certain other things. The physical verification of stock was also done in which serious discrepancies were found. F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the EC Act being case crime No. 227 of 2009. 4. On these facts the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner was cancelled by the S.D.O., Bulandshahr by order dated 21.4.2010 after considering his explanation dated 16.11.2009. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal No. 28/2010 which was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Food) Meerut, Division - Meerut by order dated 22.12.2016. 6. In paragraph 4 of the grounds of appeal the petitioner stated as under : “That the true fact of the matter is that the appellant is a small farmer of the village and now a days the crops had been cut and the produce of his own was being filled up in his house of the wheat grown in his filed. It is worth mentioning that the wheat which was being filled up in bags was his own property and was being sent to the market for disposal purpose. It was not A.P.L. wheat as falsely alleged in the order. It is worth mentioning that the wheat which was being filled up in bags was his own property and was being sent to the market for disposal purpose. It was not A.P.L. wheat as falsely alleged in the order. It is further important to mention that when the alleged inspection was made, the distribution of A.P.L. and other commodities in the shop was being conducted properly and in accordance with the orders of the competent authority.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are based on inspection report and an F.I.R. was lodged and the trial is pending and, therefore, unless and until there is an order of conviction in the criminal case, agreement cannot be cancelled. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the Case of Smt. Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(3) ADJ 638 (DB); he further submits that cancellation of fair price shop agreement merely on the basis of F.I.R. is not permissible. 8. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order. 9. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 10. Bare perusal of the impugned order shows that an inspection of fair price shop of the petitioner was made by the authorities on 12.8.2009. Just on the backside of the fair price shop there was a Court-yard. Inspecting team found on spot in the Court-yard that the petitioner was taking out A.P.L. wheat from the A.P.L. bags and was filling up it in the private bags. Forty two Kattas of such wheat measuring about 21 Quintals were found on spot. Empty Kattas of A.P.L. bags bearing mark of the month of July and August were also found. That apart weighment etc. were also found on the spot. On verification of stock serious discrepancies were found. Explanation was also called from the petitioner who submitted reply. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidences on record, the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner was cancelled by the S.D.O., Bulandshahr, vide order dated 21.4.2010. 12. In the grounds of appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner took the stand that he is a small farmer and now a days the crop had been cut and produce of his own was being filled up which was grown by him in his field. 12. In the grounds of appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner took the stand that he is a small farmer and now a days the crop had been cut and produce of his own was being filled up which was grown by him in his field. Apparently, the explanation and the ground taken by the petitioner are totally false inasmuch as inspection was done in the month of August, 2009 at which time no wheat crop is being cut. That apart the petitioner has not disclosed particulars and the extent of his agricultural holdings. The spot inspection of the petitioner’s shop and the adjoining Court-yard clearly shows that the petitioner was indulged in clandestinely removing essential commodities received by him for distribution to card holders and thus he clearly violated the terms of agreement. On these facts, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings of fact recorded in the impugned orders by the appellate authority and the adjudicating authority. 13. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 14. Writ petition lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed. 15. It is clarified that any observation made in the body of this order shall not influence the proceedings in the criminal Court pending against the petitioner and the criminal Court shall record its own independent finding based on evidences before it.