Allahabad High Court
Shri Bahadur vs State Of U.P. & Others on 23 September, 2013
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR Court No. - 2
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 68185 OF 2010
Shri Bahadur
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
*****
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
The facts are glaring and depict a sorry state of affairs in the Food and Civil Supply Department.
The petitioner was granted a licence to run a fair price shop. On account of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him, the licence was suspended and a show cause notice was issued as to why the licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner gave a reply, and eventually, the licence was cancelled by an order dated 19.3.2009, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed on 18.7.2009 and the matter was remitted again to the prescribed authority to decide the matter afresh. The prescribed authority again cancelled the licence by an order dated 24.8.2009 against which an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by an order dated 22.10.2009. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.50253 of 2009, which was allowed by a judgment dated 9.3.2010 and the order of the prescribed authority dated 24.8.2009 as well as the appellate order dated 22.10.2009 was quashed. The matter was again remitted to the prescribed authority to pass a fresh order.
The Writ Court found, that pursuant to the remand by the appellate authority, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a reply and, based on this reply, the prescribed authority asked for a fresh inquiry report and, on the basis of that inquiry report, the licence was cancelled. The Court while considering this aspect held-
"...it was obligatory and incumbent upon the licencing authority to supply a copy of the said inquiry report, which was submitted subsequent to the reply submitted by the petitioner and thereafter further called for explanation from the petitioner qua the said fresh report..."
Upon remand pursuant to the order of the Writ Court dated 9.3.2010, the prescribed authority was under an obligation to supply a copy of the inquiry report and issue a show cause notice. The prescribed authority did not do so, instead he ordered a fresh inquiry and a report dated 4.6.2010 was submitted indicating various illegalities and irregularities committed by the petitioner. On the basis of this report, the licence of the petitioner was again cancelled by an order dated 7.6.2010. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by an order dated 27.10.2010. The petitioner has again filed the present writ petition.
The Court finds, that not only the findings given by the Writ Court in its earlier order were not adhered to, the District Supply Officer has committed the same mistake by making a fresh inquiry and without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and without asking for his explanation has unilaterally passed the order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such orders, prima facie indicates non-application of mind and a deliberate attempt to disobey the orders of the Writ Court.
Without commenting any further on the conduct of the officer concerned, the Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority is violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the inquiry report were never supplied to the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. If the inquiry report is made the basis of the cancellation of the licence, the authority was required to supply a copy of the report and issue a show cause notice.
In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order of the prescribed authority as well as the consequential order of the appellate authority are quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Considering the litigation, which the petitioner has undergone, the Court does not find it fit any further to remand the matter back to the District Supply Officer to pass a fresh order and direct that the matter stands concluded finally and the licence of the petitioner shall be restored.
A certified copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the Chief Secretary, who will take appropriate measure against the prescribed authority for the manner in which he has passed the impugned order.
The Registry will send a certified copy of the order to the Chief Secretary within ten days. The Chief Secretary will submit the action taken to the High Court within three months.
In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for cost, which the Court computes at Rs.10,000/-, which will be paid by the prescribed authority to the petitioner within four weeks from today, failing which, it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in this writ petition itself. The amount so paid can be recovered by the State Government from the erring officer.
Order Date :- 23.9.2013
AKJ
(Tarun Agarwala,J.)
