Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anita Devi vs State Of U.P. Through It'S Secy. ... on 25 October, 2013
Bench: Satyendra Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 22
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 1362 of 2012
Petitioner :- Smt. Anita Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through It'S Secy. Deptt. Of Food & Civil& Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.C. Misra,Alok Kr.Srivastava,Anand Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kr. Singh,Subhash Chandra Pandey
Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the cancellation of fair price shop agreement has preferred this writ petition. Initially the order was passed on 17.4.2010 by the S.D.M. by means of which cancellation followed and thereafter the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2011.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet, to which she submitted her reply. After submission of reply, neither the petitioner was heard nor any copy of the enquiry report was supplied to her and relying upon the ex-parte enquiry report, the petitioner's fair price shop agreement was cancelled. Learned counsel submits that supply of enquiry report is a necessary requirement as contemplated under law and this question has been considered in the case of Shakir Ali v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, [2012 (30) LCD 448]. A bunch of writ petitions has been decided by this Court, leading writ petition being 4011 (M/S) of 2010, Ram Kripal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, and connected matters wherein this question has been considered and finally decided that copy of the enquiry report is necessarily to be supplied to the incumbent before cancelling the fair price shop agreement.
Learned Standing Counsel could not show any law to the contrary.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The counter affidavit filed by the learned Standing Counsel does not indicate that any copy of enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. After submission of reply to the charge sheet, cancellation order was passed and copy of the enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner. The question regarding supply of enquiry report stands decided finally by this Court in the cases of Shakir Ali (supra) and Ram Kripal Yadav (supra). The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid cases. The petitioner has never been supplied copy of the enquiry report, therefore, the orders passed by both the authorities cannot be sustained in law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 20.12.2011 and 17.4.2010. The Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned is directed to supply copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.10.2013
Rao/-
