Smt. Pramila Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 21365 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36544 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Pramila Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Himanshu Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition against the order dated 06.09.2022 by which fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended.

Against the aforesaid order appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner of the Division.

After some arguments, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner that he will make an application before the appellate court to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner as not pressed. It is argued that though before order of suspension was passed an inquiry was held but after the order of suspension was passed till date no inquiry was held in the matter.

It is specific case of the petitioner that the respondents also did not hold any enquiry after the suspending the license of the petitioner for fair price shop.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Clause 8 (8) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016, the the maximum period within which proceedings relating to irregularities committed by fair price shop owner has to be concluded resulting in suspension of cancellation of his licence, is two months. In the instant case, no enquiry was held after the order of suspension was passed. It is also submitted that the suspension order could not continue beyond two months.

Learned standing counsel is not in a position to dispute the submission made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Sub-clause (7) and (8) of Clause 8 of the Control Order reads as follows :-

"(7) The Competent Authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop owner's license.

(8) The maximum period within which proceedings relating to enquiry into irregularities committed by the fair price shop owner shall be concluded, resulting in any action as under sub-clause (7) shall be two months."

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 18.06.2022 passed in Writ C No.9541 of 2020 (Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others).

I have gone through the aforesaid judgement.From perusal of the same, it is clear that the controversy involved in the present petition is absolutely identical as in the case of Gajendra Singh (supra).

It is admitted that after suspending the license, no enquiry was held, in case it was a suspension pending enquiry. It is also not in dispute that two months have lapsed from the date of order of suspension. Consequently, the impugned order has been rendered un-sustainable in law. It is hereby quashed, leaving it open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 16.12.2022

Pramod Tripathi