Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2042 (ALL)

Nasareen Jahan v. State of U. P.

2019-09-02

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. 1. On the basis of a complaint dated 5.4.2017, a preliminary enquiry was undergone on 28.4.2017 and on 23.5.2017 the agreement/licence of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop was suspended. The petitioner was also asked to submit her reply. On 18.8.2017, the licence/agreement to run the Fair Price Shop was cancelled and, thereafter, the Appeal which the petitioner had filed was also dismissed on 24.11.2017. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry as is contemplated in the Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014 was not undergone. No date, place or time was fixed for the enquiry. The petitioner was never given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the manner in which the charges were dealt with is seen it becomes crystal clear that the orders were passed without any application of mind. The first charge was that on 28.4.2017, when the inspection was made, the Fair Price Shop Dealer was not present. It was alleged that the stock and the rate sign boards etc. were also not displayed. The petitioner had replied that as 28.4.2017 was not a date for distribution and, therefore, she had gone to collect the essential commodities, the shop was closed. Regarding the display of notice etc. she had submitted that the allegation was wrong. Learned counsel further submits that when the conclusion after the enquiry and after the inspection of the petitioner's show cause regarding the first charge was drawn, it was simply stated that the petitioner was on the wrong. No evidence was at all taken into consideration. 2. The second charge on the petitioner was that two Antyoday Card holders, namely, Jafiran w/o Nasir and Rashma w/o Malle were given only 35 kg of food grains and kerosene oil was given to them in the alternative months. The petitioner had replied that Jafiran and Rashma were not Antyodaya Card holders in her shop and to that effect Jafiran and Rashma had also given their affidavits and had specifically stated that on 28.4.2017, no inspection was done and that they had never given any statement on 28.4.2017. 3. The petitioner had replied that Jafiran and Rashma were not Antyodaya Card holders in her shop and to that effect Jafiran and Rashma had also given their affidavits and had specifically stated that on 28.4.2017, no inspection was done and that they had never given any statement on 28.4.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that when Jafiran and Rashma were not card holders in the shop of the petitioner then they were wrongly being given 35 kg. of food grains was absolutely perverse. Learned counsel submits that the charge was that they were being given only 35kg of food grains and were given kerosene oil in the alternative months. The reply was that they were not card holders in the petitioner's shop and the conclusion was strangely drawn that the petitioner was guilty of supplying 35 kg. of food grains to Jafiran and Rashma. This learned counsel submits was hilarious. 4. The third charge appears to be that collectively certain card holders had said that they were not given their food grains and to that a reply was that the Distribution Register itself was clear that the distribution was being done properly. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once again a strange conclusion was drawn that the petitioner was not distributing food grains properly. He submits that no enquiry was conducted in the manner as had been provided in the Government Orders and strangely enough conclusions were being drawn that the petitioner was not distributing food grains properly. Learned counsel also submitted that the approval which was given by the District Magistrate was also given in a routine manner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that an enquiry was undergone and, therefore, the petitioner could not have any grievance. 7. Upon hearing the case on 24.7.2019 the case was again taken up on 31.7.2019 and upon seeing the manner in which the charges had been dealt with the Court had summoned, the Sub Divisional Officer who appeared before the Court on 2.8.2019. He, in fact, had not replied to the question put to him as to why he was deciding cases without any application of mind. The Court definitely found that the enquiry was not conducted as per the Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014. No place, date and time was fixed for the enquiry. He, in fact, had not replied to the question put to him as to why he was deciding cases without any application of mind. The Court definitely found that the enquiry was not conducted as per the Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014. No place, date and time was fixed for the enquiry. The charges were dealt with in the most perfunctory manner. The Appellate Court also confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer without considering the submissions of the appellant. 8. It is, thus, in the considered view of the Court that the impugned orders dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner Moradabad, Mandal Moradabad and the order dated 18.8.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal, District-Sambhal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore, they are quashed. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. The licence of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop shall be restored and she shall be given the essential commodities for supplying to the public.