Allahabad High Court
Raja Ram vs State Of U.P. & Others on 31 October, 2012
Bench: Vineet Saran, Mushaffey Ahmad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53273 of 2012
Petitioner :- Raja Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Kumar Singh,J.P. Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.S. Yadav
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Mushaffey Ahmad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri S.S. Yadav for complainant-respondent no. 6 and perused the record.With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer. On complaint made by the respondent nos. 6 to 8 against the petitioner, by order dated 8.6.2012, the dealership of the petitioner was placed under suspension. On considering the reply of the petitioner, vide order dated 25.7.2012, the suspension of the dealership of the petitioner was withdrawn with the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3000/-, which the petitioner deposited and thereafter continued running his fair price shop. Then by the order dated 18.8.2012, the earlier order dated 25.7.2012 withdrawing the suspension order was withdrawn, meaning thereby that the suspension of the dealership of the petitioner was to continue.
Challenging the same, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 44900 of 2012, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2012 and the order dated 18.8.2012 was quashed. In the said judgment, it was held that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order dated 18.8.2012. It was also observed in the said order that giving opportunity by the inquiry officer would not amount to complying with the principles of natural justice, as opportunity has to be given before passing of the final order, which in that case was the order dated 18.8.2012. The said order dated 6.9.2012 was served on the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as District Supply Officer. However, in the meantime, on 11/12.9.2012, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has cancelled the dealership of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
Normally, this Court does not interfere in matters where the dealership has been cancelled, as the party has a right to file an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, where the order dated 18.8.2012 has itself been quashed in the earlier writ petition and the impugned order has been passed on the basis of such order/notice, we have entertained this petition.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire action of the respondent smacks of bias as firstly the respondent officials attempted to recall the order of withdrawl passed on 25.7.2012 and being unsuccessful in the same as the writ petition challenging the said order was allowed, they have passed the impugned order in haste, again without complying with the principles of natural justice. A bare perusal of the impugned order would go to show that prior to the passing of the said order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. In the said order, discussion has been made that the petitioner was given opportunity by the inquiry officer, but nowhere it has been mentioned that after accepting the inquiry report, a copy of the same was served on the petitioner or any opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his position, after submission of such report. As we have already held in earlier order dated 6.9.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 44900 of 2012 that opportunity given by the inquiry officer would not be sufficient opportunity having been given to the petitioner as he would have a right to be heard before any final order is passed against him.
In the present case, no such opportunity has been given to the petitioner, as such, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 11/12.9.2012 passed by respondent no. 4 deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order dated 11/12.9.2012 is quashed. The order dated 18.8.2012 has already been set aside in the earlier writ petition. Show cause notice issued under the said order requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation would no longer survive. The respondent authorities shall, however, be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner after giving proper show cause notice/ charge-sheet and on receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, proceed against him in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.10.2012
n.u.
(Mushaffey Ahmad, J) ( Vineet Saran, J)
