Allahabad High Court
Abdul Bahav vs Deputy Commissioner Devi Patan ... on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001551 of 2013
Petitioner :- Abdul Bahav
Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.Virendra Bahadur Singh,Arvind Pratap Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.08.2011 whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as against an order dated 16.02.2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was a fair price shop license holder and on account of certain inspections made, the petitioner's license was suspended on 05.03.2011. In the suspension order it was recorded that on the basis of an inspection report dated 25.02.2011 as many as 7 irregularities came to light and based upon the same, the suspension order was passed. The petitioner filed an objection to the said suspension order and denied that any irregularities were being done by him. However, despite the objection, an order came to be passed on 05.08.2011 cancelling the fair price shop license, which when challenged in appeal also met with the same fate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that show cause notice was issued based upon an inquiry dated 25.02.2011, a copy whereof was never supplied to the petitioner. Specific assertion in that regard was made in Para - 8 of the writ petition. He further argues that even otherwise no charge sheet was issued and even if for the sake of argument the suspension order is treated to be a charge sheet, no specific and definite charge was levelled against the petitioner. He further argues that even otherwise the order has been passed without even considering the reply filed by the petitioner or recording any finding based upon evidence against the petitioner in respect of the allegations levelled in the suspension order. He further argues that by a similar report, action was taken against as many as three persons and one of the said persons namely Smt. Anara Devi approached this Court and her writ petition is allowed by means of the judgment dated 23.03.2022 passed in Writ - C No.1001550 of 2013.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argues that the order has been passed based upon certain irregularities as were highlighted in the suspension order, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions made at the Bar it is clear and on record that some inquiry was got conducted and a report was furnished on 25.02.2011 based upon which the suspension order came to be passed, however, there was no specific show cause notice issued to the petitioner calling for his reply. Even the report based upon which the suspension order has been passed was never supplied to the petitioner as specific assertion made in the Para - 8 of the writ petition has not been denied in the counter affidavit.
Considering the fact that the show cause notice was never issued and the allegations levelled in the suspension order are also vague and general, the order passed based upon the said is clearly unsustainable. The order dated 05.08.2011 further does not record any satisfaction with regard to the allegations levelled and how they stood proved against the petitioner. The appellate order is equally silent on these aspects.
I have no hesitation in holding that the decision making process was clearly arbitrary and illegal and thus, violated the rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the orders dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure - 2) and 16.02.2013 (Annexure - 1) are set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022
nishant
