Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 329 (ALL)

Keerat v. State of U. P.

2020-01-29

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the Counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.12.2012 passed by the Deputy District Magistrate, Mahrauni District Lalitpur cancelling the license of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner as well as against the order dated 15.1.2014 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.12.2012. 3. The argument of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 3.12.2012 was passed without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him. It has been further argued that the order dated 3.12.2012 was passed without following the procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 in as much as no notice was issued to the petitioner giving him a last opportunity to present his case. It was argued that the Appellate Court has not considered the aforesaid aspect while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 3.12.2012 and 15.1.2014 are contrary to law and are liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, the Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments delivered in Ajay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (128) ALR 375 and Idrish v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (120) ALR 59. 4. A reading of the order dated 3.12.2012 reveals that before proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, the petitioner was issued a notice on 5.10.2012 and he was directed to produce evidence as well as his explanation within one week from the date of service of notice. There is no averment in the writ petition that the aforesaid recital in the order dated 3.12.2012 is wrong. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in response to notice dated 5.10.2012. It is evident that the petitioner did not cooperate in the enquiry proceedings and did not produce any explanation or evidence in pursuance to the notice dated 5.10.2012 and therefore the Deputy District Magistrate proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the procedure followed by the Deputy District Magistrate before cancelling the license of fair price shop of the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the procedure followed by the Deputy District Magistrate before cancelling the license of fair price shop of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the proceedings were held ex parte against the petitioner because he did not appear before the Deputy District Magistrate despite a notice having been issued to him asking him to submit his evidence within one week from the date of service of notice, the judgments referred by the Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case are not applicable in the present case. 6. While dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Court has also taken note of the fact that deponents of the affidavits filed by the petitioner had clearly denied that they had signed those affidavits and the affidavits were forged. 7. The petitioner had also failed to produce the stock and the distribution register before the Trial Court. 8. It is also apparent that the present proceedings were the third proceedings when the petitioner was noticed for having committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. Previously, the petitioner was fined by the concerned authorities for having committed irregularity in distribution of essential commodities. The recital to the aforesaid effect in the order dated 3.12.2012 has also not been controverted in the writ petition. 9. There is no illegality in the orders dated 3.12.2012 and 15.1.2014 passed by the Deputy District Magistrate, Mahrauni and Deputy Commissioner (Admn.), Jhansi Division, Jhansi so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.