Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sunita Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26084 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2018 whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 02.07.2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was a fair price ship license holder and on account of an inquiry conducted against her, she was served with a show cause notice dated 18.09.2017 alleging therein that at the time of inquiry, the petitioner was not found in the shop. It was informed by the husband of the petitioner that she was unwell and had gone to take medicine. It is also recorded that several persons numbering about 17 levelled allegations against the petitioner with regard to improper supply of food grains and other essential items. It was also referred that on the spot, around 15-20 persons had made complaint that the food grains' supply was improper. In the light of the said allegations, the petitioner was called upon to file a reply. The fair price shop of the petitioner was not suspended. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice denying the allegations levelled therein. She specifically denied the allegations with regard to the improper supply and in respect of the allegations levelled at sl. no.11, it was denied that the statement given against the petitioner was wrong as there was no cardholder in the name of Smt. Ramwati. In support of her defence, the petitioner placed reliance on the dispute going on in between the petitioner and the complainant, affidavits of various card holders, statements of villagers which were relied upon by the petitioner, a composite statement of the villagers as well as the record demonstrating the supplies.
After considering the documents as filed by the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 02.02.2018 cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner. While doing so, the licensing authority rejected the affidavits filed by the petitioner in support of his defence mainly on the ground that they appeared to be similar and thus, they were not worthy of any reliance and appeared to be forged and fabricated. No finding was recorded in respect of the statement of the villagers as relied upon in the defence and based upon the said finding, the license of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner preferred an appeal and took all the grounds. The appellate authority while dismissing the appeal disbelieved the affidavits mainly on the ground that all the affidavits were in similar language and on some places whitener were also used and thus he also came to the conclusion that the affidavits filed in support of the petitioner were not trustworthy and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the manner of adjudication of the dispute is clearly arbitrary and perverse, inasmuch as, the entire documents filed by the petitioner in her defence, including the defence that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were mala fide has not even been gone into while passing the impugned orders. He further argues that even if the licensing authority was of the view that the documents given by the petitioner in the form of affidavits were suspicious, it was incumbent upon the licensing authority to have granted the permission to adduce better affidavits. He also draws my attention to the fact that the entire proceedings for getting the inquiry done was initiated at the instance of the oral direction given by the SDM as contained in Annexure-CA-2 of the counter affidavit filed by the State.
The Counsel for the petitioner further argues that mere fact that the license of the petitioner was not suspended indicates that the charges levelled against the petitioner were very weak so as to warrant suspension, which is normal course adopted by the licensing authority while dealing with similar allegations. He relies upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Amita Devi vs State of U.P. and others decided on 21.04.2022 Writ-C No.26269 of 2020, Balram Das vs State of U.P. and others decided on 11.04.2022 in Writ-C No.20446 of 2017 and Pooja Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 04.02.2022 in Writ-C No.5118 of 2018.
In the light of the said arguments, the Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petition is liable to be allowed.
The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, justifies the orders impugned by arguing that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend and thus no fault can be found with the orders impugned. He also argues that the last argument of the Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated on the oral direction of the SDM is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as, there is no bar on oral direction being issued for inquiry. He thus, argues that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner had replied the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and had place reliance on material evidences in the form of affidavits, statements and the records as also the documents showing that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were mala fide and an outcome of the litigation going on in between the complainant and the petitioner. The licensing authority while cancelling the license has rejected the affidavits filed by the petitioner in her defence on the ground that the same were not trustworthy as they appeared in the same language. In view of this Court, the same finding is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, merely because the affidavits were written in a similar language, the veracity of the said cannot be disbelieved merely on that ground. I have no hesitation in holding that the finding to that extent is arbitrary. Even otherwise, this Court has held that in the event, the affidavits are found to be wanting, it is always open to the licensing authority to call for better affidavits or for production of the deponents of the said affidavits, which has not been done in the present petition. The licensing authority has not recorded any finding on the submission that the complaint was mala fide and has failed to consider the other evidences given by the petitioner in the form of statements of villagers.
From the record, it further appears that the allegations were levelled against the petitioner which were denied by the petitioner and thus, the burden of proof to carry home the allegations was on the State. Merely because the defence taken by the petitioner or the evidence adduced by the petitioner were found to be wanting, an automatic conclusion cannot be drawn with the charges levelled stood established, which has been done by the State.
In the present case, the State has failed to discharge its burden in the light of the findings as recorded above.
I am of the firm view that the orders impugned dated 02.02.2018 and 02.07.2019 are clearly unsustainable and are set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022
akverma
