Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar Verma vs Sanyukt Aayukt (Khaadya) ... on 3 May, 2018
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45764 of 2017
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Verma
Respondent :- Sanyukt Aayukt (Khaadya) Allahabad And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Initially, the petitioner's fair price shop was suspended on 13.4.2017. Thereafter, the licence to run the fair price shop was cancelled on 5.6.2017. The appeal which was filed on 19.6.2017 was ultimately dismissed on 2.11.2017. To begin with, the writ petition was filed against an order dated 29.8.2017 by which the stay application of the petitioner was rejected. Subsequently, however when the final order dismissing the appeal was passed on 2.11.2017, the petitioner had assailed the order by filing an amendment application. The amendment application was allowed. Thereafter, the writ petition, upon the exchange of the affidavits, was heard finally.
Admittedly, the petitioner is visually impaired and totally blind. In the beginning, he was contesting the writ petition on his own but when a request was made to Sri Anand Prakash Pandey, Advocate, he readily agreed and assisted the petitioner to the best of his ability. The Court is extremely thankful for the assistance extended by Sri Anand Prakash Pandey.
The petitioner who is visually handicapped had been initially granted a licence to run the fair price shop in the year 2008. Thereafter, on a few other occasions, the licence to run the fair price shop was cancelled, and, thereafter, when challenge was made to the cancellation orders, they were set aside. Since, the petitioner is a visually disabled individual, he had been given assistance to run the fair price shop. The name of the assistant is Neeraj.
The counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders made the following submissions :
I. When the licence was suspended on 15.4.2017 and almost 24 charges were levelled against the petitioner, the respondents had all through thought that the petitioner who was visually disabled person would contest the case himself. Learned counsel submits that, in fact, the charges should have been served upon the Assistant, Sri Neeraj and he should have, in fact, been permitted to submit the reply.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the case reported in 2010 (5) ALJ 266 (Muneem Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors.) a person who was blind could also be appointed a dealer and as the Government was aware of the fact that a visually disabled person could not properly run the fair price shop, it had issued a Government Order dated 1.2.2008, by which, it was provided that a visually challenged licencee could engage a helper for running the Fair Price Shop. Learned counsel submitted that, as per the provisions of the "Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995," the petitioner, who was a blind person, had to be brought on an equal footing with a common human being and, therefore, he had to work through the eye of his helper/assistant.
III. Learned counsel submitted that throughout the proceedings, the assistance of the helper was never taken.
VI. As per the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014, the petitioner had to be given a full opportunity to deny the charges which were leveled against him. A date, place and time ought to have been fixed for the enquiry and, thereafter, on the dates fixed, the petitioner should have been allowed to produce his own witnesses and should have also been permitted to cross-examine the complainants etc. This is, learned counsel submits, what has also been held in the Full Bench decision reported in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 947 and the decision dated 10.11.2017 passed in Writ C No. 35919 of 2017 (Ansar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.). Cross-examination had been made essential as per the Government Order dated 16.10.2014.
Learned counsel further submitted that as per the Government Order dated 29.6.2015 it had been provided that on every date of distribution, the fair price shop had to be attended by Government Officials. Learned counsel submits that when Government Officials were required to be present on the date of distribution ordinarily where the fair price shop distributor was not a disabled person, then, it looked strange that the petitioner's fair price shop was not attended to by any Government Official at all. Learned counsel further submitted that if the distribution was to be done by the petitioner himself, without the presence of the Government Officials, then the respondents were expecting too much from a blind person.
Learned Standing Counsel, in reply, has, however, submitted that since the petitioner was a blind person, it did not mean that he would not indulge in any sort of irregularities and further submitted that since in the enquiry which had been conducted, it was found that the petitioner had committed irregularities, it was only in the fitness of things that the licence to run the fair price shop be cancelled.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the licence to run the fair price shop was wrongly cancelled. The enquiry definitely was not conducted, in the manner, it has been provided in the Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014. Cross-examination of a witness has been held by the Supreme Court to be an inseparable part of the principles of natural justice in AIR 2013 SC 58 : Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and this is what the Government Order dated 16.10.2014 has also said. If a cross-examination of the witnesses had to take place then a place and a time for enquiry also ought to have been fixed. Any finding which had been arrived at which led to the cancellation of the licence of the fair price shop would have no meaning if the petitioner got no opportunity to examine the complainants. Further, I find that when the enquiry was conducted the petitioner was not allowed to take the help of his assistant/helper.
Under such circumstance, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 5.6.2017 and 2.11.2017 are set aside.
The fair price shop would now be restored to the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, shall see to it that a proper helper is provided to the petitioner as per the Government Order dated 1.2.2008. Further, the officials concerned shall see to it that during the distribution, the petitioner's shop is attended by Government officials as per the Government Order dated 29.6.2015.
Since, Sri Anand Prakash Pandey, Advocate, rendered a very valuable assistance to the Court, I direct the Legal Services Authority to pay to him such fee which is payable to a lawyer empanelled with them.
Order Date :- 3.5.2018
praveen.
