Allahabad High Court
Balveer Singh vs The State Of U P And 2 Others on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 12.04.2023
Delivered on 19.04.2023
Court No. - 76
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1043 of 2023
Petitioner :- Balveer Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The present writ petition is filed against impugned order dated 23.07.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghiror, Mainpuri whereby fair price shop licence of petitioner was cancelled and order dated 13.05.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner (Food and Supply), Agra Division, Agra, whereby appeal against aforesaid order was rejected.
2. An inspection of fair price shop of petitioner was conducted by a joint team on 03.08.2012 and on physical counting it was found that 47 sacks of wheat were less. Accordingly licence of petitioner's fair price shop was put under suspension vide order dated 18.08.2012 and explanation was sought from petitioner. Since petitioner failed to submit any explanation, his licence was cancelled by order dated 31.05.2013. Petitioner filed appeal against this order which was rejected by Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.04.2014. Both these orders were challenged before this Court in Writ-C No. 23529 of 2014. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.10.2015 allowed said writ petition, impugned orders therein were quashed and matter was remanded back to pass fresh order and this Court has referred a judgment passed by Full Bench in Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB).
3. In compliance of above referred order, petitioner was directed to submit relevant registers etc. Petitioner submitted relevant registers and a fresh inquiry was conducted. Considering irregularities, a show cause notice/ charge sheet was issued by letter dated 30.03.2016 and explanation was sought about 47 missing sacks of wheat as well as with regard to irregularities committed in the month of August, 2012 that details of BPL ration cards were not properly mentioned in register, about 24.90 quintal wheat of BPL was not recorded and less distribution of foodgrains and kerosene oil etc. In the said letter explanation was sought with regard to irregularities under 17 points.
4. Petitioner submitted reply that for offence of 47 missing sacks of wheat, he has already been suffered punishment under Essential Commodities Act. He further submitted explanation with regard to other irregularities wherein it appears that he has admitted irregularities but tried to explain through vague explanation, such as, register was not filled due to rush and due to his mistake entries were wrongly mentioned in registers.
5. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghiror after considering explanations found that the same are vague and, therefore, conditions were violated and licence was cancelled by impugned order dated 23.07.2016 and appeal thereof was also rejected by impugned order dated 13.05.2022.
6. Ms. Prachi Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, has vehemently argued that all irregularities were duly explained, however, explanations were not considered and rejected. Proper inquiry in terms of judgment passed in Puran Singh (supra) was not conducted and petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the go-down incharge.
7. Sri Shashi Kant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, has opposed above submissions that principle of natural justice has substantially been complied and explanation submitted by petitioner was considered by Licensing Authority, who found the same vague, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in impugned order.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
9. With regard to submission of proper inquiry in terms of judgment in Puran Singh (supra), it would be appropriate to refer latest judgment of this Court in Shankar Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others (Misc. Single No. 32679 of 2019), decided on 08.12.2021 and para 47 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"47. Thus, we answer the reference as under:-
(i) It is held that the parameters for an enquiry to be conducted against the licensee for the irregularities committed by the licensee in terms of the Distribution of Essential Commodities is on broad principles of natural justice where the competent authority shall provide a show cause notice to the licensee indicating the violations and irregularities committed by the licensee with sufficient particularity to enable him to respond to the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the decision can be taken by the competent authority by a reasoned and a speaking order. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry;
(ii) It is held that the words "full fledged enquiry" as used by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision of Puran Singh (supra) has to be read in context with paras 4 and 5 of the Government Order of July 2004 and the scheme therein which merely requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and does not provide for a detailed enquiry involving various stages and steps as are required to be met in disciplinary enquiry against a government servant."
10. In the present case after matter was remanded back a fresh inquiry was conducted wherein various irregularities were found which was informed to petitioner and reply was also filed. In order to consider submission of learned counsel for petitioner I have carefully perused impugned orders wherein reply of petitioner has been considered point by point and on the face of it explanation appears to be vague. For instance, in distribution register on many places name of card holders as well as signatures and thumb impressions were not found and petitioner has given an explanation that it was due to rush that entries were not filled properly. In reply to irregularities that details of eight quintal sugar in the month of August, 2012 was not recorded, the explanation was it was due to rush. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity when Licensing Authority has held that explanation submitted by petitioner was vague and it has rightly decided to cancel fair price shop licence of petitioner. The Appellate Authority has also does not found any ground to interfere. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to show any illegality in the impugned orders.
11. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :-19.04.2023
AK
