Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2233 (ALL)

Arvind Kumar Pandey v. State Of U. P.

2024-10-21

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Kamla Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Surya Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla for respondent no.5 and Mr. Rishi Kant Rai for proposed respondent no.6-Smt. Garima Pandey. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was granted license to run the fair price shop in Village-Rampur, Block-Rewati, Tehsil-Bairia, District-Ballia. Smt.Gunja Pandey-Gram Pradhan filed a complaint against the petitioner before the District Magistrate in respect of running the fair price shop by the petitioner, accordingly, an inquiry was conducted by District Supply Officer, Rewati, Ballia and vide order dated 27.05.2017 the fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended. In pursuance of suspension order an explanation was called from the petitioner accordingly, reply was submitted by the petitioner on 22.6.2017 along with affidavit of card holders, statements, proof of distribution of essential commodities to the card holders and registration etc. Respondent No.4/ District Supply Officer, Ballia, vide order dated 25.07.2017, cancelled the fair price shop license of the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 25.07.2017 through writ petition no.37139 of 2017 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2017 with direction to file an appeal before the appellate authority. In pursuance of the order of this court dated 19.08.2017, petitioner filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2/ Divisional Commissioner. Petitioner filed another writ petition No. 62661 of 2017 before this court for mandamus to decide the pending appeal within stipulated period which was disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2017 directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two months and as an interim measure, it was also directed that if, third party right is created the same shall be subject to the decision of the appeal. Respondent No.2/Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 14.03.2018 allowed the petitioner's appeal in part and directed the licensing authority to decide the appeal afresh within two months after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as to maintain status quo. In pursuance of the appellate order dated 14.03.2018, petitioner filed an application on 05.04.2018 before the District Supply Officer along with affidavit of card holders. On 7.06.2018, a complaint was made by the petitioner before the District Magistrate for an inquiry in the matter. The Gram Pradhan took a statement of card holders and ex-party inquiry was done. In pursuance of the appellate order dated 14.03.2018, petitioner filed an application on 05.04.2018 before the District Supply Officer along with affidavit of card holders. On 7.06.2018, a complaint was made by the petitioner before the District Magistrate for an inquiry in the matter. The Gram Pradhan took a statement of card holders and ex-party inquiry was done. Respondent No.4/ District Supply Officer again cancelled the fair price shop license of the petitioner vide order dated 2.06.2018. Petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner against order dated 2.06.2018 which was registered as Appeal No. 01294 of 2018 before Respondent No. 2. Petitioner challenged the order dated 2.06.2018 before this court by way of writ petition No.39089-2018 which was decided vide order dated 29.11.2019 with direction to decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with law. The aforementioned appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 18.2.2019, hence this writ petition for the following relief: "(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18-02- -2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and order dated 02-06- -2018 passed by the District Supply Officer, Ballia (Annexure no.12 & 8 to the writ petition). (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a regular enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in view of full bench judgment and order passed in Pooran Singh's case and Govt. Order dated 29-07-2004 and Order, 2016. (C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to resume the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law. (D) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. This court vide order dated 28.3.2019 directed the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit and it was also ordered that any allotment or resettlement of the fair price shop in question shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. In pursuance of the order dated 28.3.2019 affidavits are exchanged between the parties. 4. This court vide order dated 28.3.2019 directed the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit and it was also ordered that any allotment or resettlement of the fair price shop in question shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. In pursuance of the order dated 28.3.2019 affidavits are exchanged between the parties. 4. An Impledment application dated 10.09.2024 has been filed on behalf of Smt. Garima Pandey for her Impleadment in the writ petition stating that fair price shop licence has been granted in favour of the applicant Smt. Garima Pandey vide order dated 29.06.2018 and she is running the fair price shop licence according to the provisions of control order as well as government order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted fair price shop licence and he was running the fair price shop licence according to the Control order and the Government order issued from time to time for running fair price Shop. He further submitted that inquiry was conducted by the authorities in illegal and arbitrary manner which has resulted into cancellation of the fair price shop license of the petitioner. He further submitted that reply submitted by petitioner along with the affidavit of the cardholders has not been taken into consideration while passing the cancellation order against the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner's license was cancelled without conducting any regular inquiry. He further submitted that Clause 22.1 has not been followed and the provisions contained under the Government Order dated 29.07.2014 has also been violated by the authorities while passing the impugned cancellation order. He further submitted that no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner before passing cancellation order as such cancellation order is illegal. He further submitted that according to the ratio of law laid down by this Court from time to time, fair price shop license cannot be cancelled without conducting regular inquiry in the matter. He placed reliance upon the full bench judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (3) 659 Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others in order to demonstrate that opportunity of hearing is mandatory before cancellation of fair price shop license of the license holders. He placed reliance upon the full bench judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (3) 659 Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others in order to demonstrate that opportunity of hearing is mandatory before cancellation of fair price shop license of the license holders. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this court reported in 2019 (5) ADJ-595 Mukesh Kumar v. State of UP and others in order to demonstrate that provision of Government Order as well as Distribution Control Order, 2004 is to be followed before cancellation of Fair Price Shop License. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that after holding proper inquiry in the matter Fair Price Shop License of the petitioner has been cancelled. He further submitted that show cause was given to the petitioner and petitioner submitted his reply as such it cannot be said that proper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of his Fair Price Shop License. He further submitted that provision of the Control Order and the Government Order has been followed while passing the impugned cancellation order as well as appellate order. He further placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court in order to demonstrate that no interference is required in the matter against the impugned orders: i. Misc. Single No.32679 of 2019 Shankar Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others. ii. 2018 (10) ADJ 450 Allahabad High Court (Writ Petition No.40313 of 2017) Arjun vs. State of U.P. iii. (2021) 151 RD 668 (Writ C No.27107 of 2020) Mamta Devi vs. State of U.P. and another. iv. 2021 (10) ADJ 504 Allahabad High Court, Najakat Ali vs. State of U.P. and others. 7. Mr. Rishi Kant Rai appearing for the proposed respondent No.6-Smt. Garima Pandey, who is running the Fair Price Shop License after cancellation of the license of petitioner submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order as there was serious complaint against the petitioner for running the Fair Price Shop. He further submitted that after conducting the proper inquiry petitioner's Fair Price Shop License has been cancelled according to the procedure prescribed under Control Order/ Government Order/Rules. 8. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. He further submitted that after conducting the proper inquiry petitioner's Fair Price Shop License has been cancelled according to the procedure prescribed under Control Order/ Government Order/Rules. 8. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner's Fair Price Shop License has been cancelled by the licensing authority and appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. There is also no dispute about the fact that after cancellation the Fair Price Shop License of the petitioner same was granted in favour of one Smt. Garima Pandey who has applied for impleadment in the matter. 10. The perusal of operative portion of suspension order along with order of show cause dated 27.05.2017 to petitioner will be relevant which is as under: 11. Petitioner submitted his detailed show cause dated 22.06.2017 before respondent No.4/District Supply Officer which has been taken into consideration by respondent No.4 while passing the cancellation order. 12. Perusal of the cancellation order 2.6.2018 passed by District Supply Officer will be also relevant which is as under: 13.Single Judge of this Court has made reference to the Division Bench of this Court as to what are the parameters of natural justice as well as about the observation made in full bench of Puran Singh (supra), accordingly, Division bench judgment of this Court in Shankar Prasad (Supra) has answered the reference in following manner.:--- 47. Thus, we answer the reference as under:- (1) It is held that the parameters for an enquiry to be conducted against the licensee for the irregularities committed by the licensee in terms of the Distribution of Essential Commodities is on broad principles of natural justice where the competent authority shall provide a show cause notice to the licensee indicating the violations and irregularities committed by the licensee with sufficient particularity to enable him to respond to the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the decision can be taken by the competent authority by a reasoned and a speaking order. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry. (2) It is held that the words "full fledged enquiry as used by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision of Puran Singh (supra) has to be read in context with paras 4 and 5 of the Government Order of July 2004 and the scheme therein which merely requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and does not provide for a detailed enquiry involving various stages and steps as are required to be met in disciplinary enquiry against a government servant. 14. Perusal of the Impugned Cancellation Order fully demonstrate that there was serious irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders. Perusal of the Cancellation Order as quoted above further demonstrate that reply/explanation dated 22.06.2017 submitted by petitioner was properly considered by the inquiry officer. Impugned Cancellation order further demonstrate that proper inquiry was conducted in the matter by the licensing authority before cancellation of Fair Price Shop License of the petitioner. The Cancellation order of the licensing authority was maintained in appeal before the Appellate Authority/ Commissioner. Perusal of the order of the appellate authority also demonstrate that Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as affidavit filed by the card-holders and the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer before cancellation of Fair Price Shop License of the petitioner. 15. Considering the findings of fact recorded by Licensing Authority as well as Appellate Authority, as well as ratio of law laid down by this Court in Shankar Prasad (Supra) no interference is required in the matter against the impugned cancellation order as well as Appellate order. 16. The Writ petition is dismissed. 17. No order as to cost.