Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1971 (ALL)

Dharmendra Gupta v. State Of UP

2024-08-30

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Avdhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. The writ petition is being heard finally without inviting counter affidavit with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was granted license for fair price shop in the year 2008 and petitioner was accordingly distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders according to the provisions contained under Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution Control) order 2016. He submitted that a misconceived complaint was entertained without following the prescribed procedure under the Government Order dated 5-08-2019 and license of fair price shop of the petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 17-05-2024 hence this writ petition filed for the following reliefs: "(a). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari questioning the impugned order dated 17-05-2014 passed by respondent. No. 3 (contained as Annexuere No. 1) as it suffers from both malice of law and malice of fact. (b). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the respondent. No. 2 to decide the application dated 13-06-2024 of the petitioner pending before him." 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no irregularities in distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders as such the license of the petitioner cannot be suspended in view of the provisions contained under the Government Order dated 5-08-2019. He further submitted that there was proper storage of required essential commodities in the shop of the petitioner. He submitted that part of the commodities was stored in the adjacent room of the same premises but the inspection was made in respect to the one room without making inspection of the another room. He further placed copy of the Government Order dated 5-08-2019 which provides full procedure for filing complaint and initiating proceeding but in the instant matter suspension order was passed by the authority in an arbitrary manner. He submitted that according to Government Order shop could not be suspended in casual manner, but in the instant matter shop has been suspended in casual manner as such suspension order passed by the authority be set aside and writ petition be allowed. 6. He submitted that according to Government Order shop could not be suspended in casual manner, but in the instant matter shop has been suspended in casual manner as such suspension order passed by the authority be set aside and writ petition be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State-respondent submitted that licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner has rightly been suspended and suspension order is appealable, as such writ petiton is not maintainable. He further submitted that inspection was conducted by the authority in proper manner and it was found that there was shortage of the essential commodities in the shop of the petitioner, as such no interference is required. He further submitted that enquiry is going on as such writ petiton should not be entertained. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was granted licence for fair price shop in the year 2008 and according to the complaint made in the year 2024 his shop has been suspended on the ground that there was shortage of the essential commodities at the shop of the petitioner as well as irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the perusal of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 will be relevant which is as under: 10. Perusal of the government order dated 05.08.2019 as quoted above demonstrate that complaint should be entertained in particular manner which is prescribed under the Government Order. The government order further demonstrate that licence should not be suspended in routine manner. In the instant matter the complaint has been entertained in violation of the mandatory provision contained the Government order dated 05.08.2019 and without considering the petitioner's reply, petitioner's licence for fair price shop has been suspended. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, case for interference against the suspension order is made out as there is no proper consideration of the Government order regarding entertaining the complaint made in respect to the fair price shop as well as for suspension of the fair price shop. 12. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, case for interference against the suspension order is made out as there is no proper consideration of the Government order regarding entertaining the complaint made in respect to the fair price shop as well as for suspension of the fair price shop. 12. So far as availability of alternative remedy is concern, Apex Court in a case reported in 2009 (1) AWC 437 (SC) Committee of Management and another Vs. Vice Chancellor and others has held that alternative remedy will not be bar if the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice or impugned order has been passed in violation of the settled principle of law or impugned order is without jurisdiction. 13. In the instant matter suspension order has been passed in violation of the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 as well as Government Order dated 05.08.2019 as such alternative remedy will not be bar for the petitioner to challenge the impugned suspension order before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned suspension order dated 17.05.2024 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and respondents are directed to restore the supply of petitioner forthwith and authorities are directed to conclude the pending enquiry according to the provision contained under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 as well Government order dated 05.08.2019 within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.