Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 263 (ALL)

RAM BABU TIWARI v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-02-01

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cancellation of fair price shop of the petitioner dated 10.08.2015 and the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the fair price shop licence was granted to the petitioner in the year 1998 and he was continuing to distribute all Scheduled Commodities in accordance with law for the past several years. In 2013 however, his fair price shop licence was cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner has submitted his reply before the Licensing Authority due to ill health. The cancellation order dated 01.11.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mainpuri was set aside by the Commissioner on 17.10.2014 with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner thereafter on 21.11.2014 indicating therein five charges and calling for his reply. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 28.11.2014 to the said show cause notice, but the reply was not considered at all and the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has again been cancelled by the impugned order dated 10.08.2015. The petitioner approached the Appellate Authority and the Appeal has been rejected again summarily on 15.04.2017 without making any reference to the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the show cause notice issued on 21.11.2014. With respect to five charges, one complainant Jageshwar Kumar, son of Munshi Lal had an Antyodaya Ration Card with him while other complainants belonging to BPL Category, namely, Vijendra Singh, Krishna Gopal, Sarvendra Giri and Ram Sanehi that they were not being given the prescribed quantity of food grains admissible to them at the prescribed rate. Another charge was levelled that the petitioner did not distribute the Scheduled Commodities after measuring them and weighing them properly, but used unmarked containers and Stock Board of the shop did not show the quantity of stock available. Another charge was levelled that the petitioner did not distribute the Scheduled Commodities after measuring them and weighing them properly, but used unmarked containers and Stock Board of the shop did not show the quantity of stock available. The petitioner has submitted in his reply dated 28.11.2014 that the Gram Pradhan, Harish Chandra was constantly harassing the petitioner and asking for illegal gratification/release of sugar and kerosene on the basis of hand written parchi handed out to his supporters and he had engineered the false complaints against the petitioner. At the time when initial inspection of the shop was done on the complaint made by the Gram Pradhan on 10.10.2013, the distribution was being carried out and the Official Observer Shaym Singh Yadav was present and he had issued a Distribution Certificate also on 18.10.2013. The Scheduled Commodities were being distributed after measuring them properly by Electronic Weighing Scale recently purchased by the petitioner and a specific contention was raised that even on the inspection being done of the shop at the time when distribution was being carried out by the petitioner, no statement of any of the beneficiaries was taken on the spot. The petitioner has mentioned in his explanation that the inquiry report on the basis of which show cause notice was issued to him was not based on any actual verification of the ration cards of the complainants. With respect to each of the complainant, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply with regard to their relation to the current Gram Pradhan and he has also submitted that his Sale Register, Stock register and Distribution Certificate should be examined with corresponding entries in the Ration Cards of such complainants to find out the truth of the matter. No such exercise was undertaken by the Licensing Authority. It has also been submitted by the petitioner in his explanation that he has been working as fair price shop licensee since 1998 and there are 171 BPL Card holders in his village and only three persons had come forward to complain against the alleged irregularity. There are 100 Antyodaya Card-holders and out of only one person Jageshwar Kumar had complained. There are 529 APL Card-holders out of which only two persons have complained. Rest of villagers are satisfied with the distribution of the Scheduled Commodities by the petitioner. There are 100 Antyodaya Card-holders and out of only one person Jageshwar Kumar had complained. There are 529 APL Card-holders out of which only two persons have complained. Rest of villagers are satisfied with the distribution of the Scheduled Commodities by the petitioner. It has been specifically mentioned in the explanation submitted by the petitioner that the complaints had been engineered by the Gram Pradhan to get a vacancy created in the village concerned so that the same may be allotted in favour of Reserved Category Candidate, namely, his own real brother Shri Krishana. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out from the impugned order of cancellation of fair price shop licence dated 10.08.2015 that despite specific averments in the explanation of the petitioner that the Sale Register, Stock Register, Distribution Certificate and Ration Cards of the complainants be examined to find out the truth of the matter, the Licensing Authority has merely observed that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence in his explanation with regard to complaints made against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to the Appellate Order dated 15.04.2017, wherein although specific grounds were raised in the Appeal, none of these grounds were considered while rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned orders, this Court finds that they suffer from non-application of mind to the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner. There was nothing which prevented the Licensing Authority to examine the entries in the Ration Cards of those BPL and Antyodaya Card-holders, who had complained against the petitioner with the corresponding entries in the Distribution/Sale Register. Even the Official Observer, who had issued the Distribution Certificate on 18.10.2013 was not examined by the Licensing Authority. The Appellate Authority being the first Court of fact and law could have summoned the records and examined the same to come at an objective conclusion on his own, which was not also done. 7. The impugned orders are set aside. 8. Let appropriate orders be passed restoring the fair price shop licence of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Authority concerned. 9. The writ petition is allowed to this extent.