Jaipal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12856 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 19.04.2023
 
Delivered on 26.04.2023
 
Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2405 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Jaipal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Petitioner is a licensee of a fair price shop. In pursuance of complaints with regard to irregularities committed by petitioner in distribution of foodgrains, the Supply Inspector conducted a spot inspection on 25.04.2018 and recorded statements of complainants-cardholders that they were not provided requisite foodgrains and kerosene oil on regular basis. There was allegation of misbehaviour by petitioner with them. Some cardholders have not received kerosene oil and some were provided lesser quantity.

2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal vide order dated 29.04.2018 on basis of above referred complaints and report, issued charge sheet and sought explanation from petitioner. Meanwhile, since petitioner has not deposited requisite fee through e-challan for the month of July, 2018 till 25.06.2018, therefore, licence was put under suspension vide order dated 28.06.2019 and reply thereof was also sought.

3. The petitioner filed consolidated reply to both, i.e., charge sheet and suspension order. He replied that he was not well from 15.06.2018 to 02.08.2018, therefore, he was not able to deposit fee through e-challan. So far as other allegations are concerned, petitioner has mentioned that no irregularities were committed, cardholders were provided their quota of foodgrains on fixed price, distribution was conducted in presence of Supervisor and due to village partibandi false complaints were made against him. He placed photo copies of registers alongwith copies of certificates issued by relevant persons involved in distribution. Petitioner has also submitted medical certificate.

4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal after considering reply of petitioner, vide order dated 31.12.2018 cancelled fair price shop licence of petitioner. In said order it was held that after perusal of distribution register for the month of April, 2018 no details were found with regard to few complainants that their quota was distributed which was contrary to the reply. There were other irregularities, that no details were mentioned that foodgrains were distributed to other cardholders. Authority concerned has taken note that in register there were multiple double entries of same cardholders which indicates that foodgrains were distributed twice to many cardholders.

5. The petitioner filed appeal against cancellation order dated 31.12.2018 but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 02.12.2019 passed by Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, hence petitioner filed present writ petition challenging both orders.

6. Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that inquiry was conducted ex parte and, therefore, principles of natural justice were violated as well as petitioner was not provided opportunity to explain the allegations of double entries which was one of the ground to pass impugned orders. Learned counsel further submitted that distribution was conducted in presence of Supervisor and stock registers were duly certified by official concerned. Authority concerned has not given any finding that petitioner was not well during relevant period, therefore, he was not able to deposit requisite fee for lifting foodgrains through e-challan within prescribed time. He also placed reliance on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB) and refers provisions of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 that prescribed procedure was not followed.

7. Per contra, Sri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents submitted that petitioner was provided opportunity to explain irregularities committed during distribution, however, explanation was apparently vague. The stock register also indicates that allegation of irregularity in distribution of foodgrains was correct as details of number of complainants were not found in register. In addition to said irregularities Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also noted about double entries and for that either before Appellate Authority or in present writ petition, no material was placed to show that it was a perverse finding.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Before considering rival submissions, it would be appropriate to mention few paragraphs of Division Bench 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 wherein scope of inquiry in the cases of licence of fair price shop has been explained 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 there are various complaints against petitioner which were communicated to him and reply was sought. A reply was given by petitioner that no irregularities were committed, however, it was found contrary to record and the relevant findings of Licensing Authority is mentioned hereinafter:

"विक्रेता के द्वारा साक्ष्य हेतु प्रस्तुत ०३ माह के वितरण अभिलेखों में माह अप्रैल २०१८ के वितरण अभिलेख का परिक्षण किया गया तो इस अभिलेख में आरोप पत्र में वर्णित कार्डधारकों में श्री श्रीमती अफरोज, फूलजहां तथा श्रीमती रानी देवी को आवश्यक वस्तुएं निर्गत किये जाने का इंद्राज नहीं पाया गया है, जबकि विक्रेता के द्वारा आरोप पत्र में वर्णित सभी कार्डधारकों को आवश्यक वस्तुएं वितरण अभिलेख में इंद्राज कर निर्गत किये जाने का उल्लेख किया गया है। उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है कि विक्रेता का कथन असत्य है।"

11. Learned counsel for petitioner either in writ petition or during argument, has not been able to contradict the above findings and failed to bring on record any material that above referred findings are perverse. Therefore, above findings itself are sufficient to hold that petitioner has violated conditions of licence. There was substantial compliance of principles of natural justice.

12. Licensing Authority has also noted that from careful inspection of distribution register, it was found that there were multiple instances of double entries and it was an additional ground to cancel fair price licence of petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner that no opportunity was granted to him to explain the reason behind double entries, does not have any merit since neither in memo of appeal nor in present writ petition nor despite granting opportunity during hearing of writ petition, any cogent material or reasonable explanation was presented to show that said findings were perverse or there was any reasonable explanation for same.

13. There is limited merit in the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that an explanation was submitted with regard to not depositing requisite fee within prescribed period by submitting medical certificate and prescriptions of doctor but, in impugned order though it was noted, but no specific finding has been given. However, it would also be not helpful to petitioner since due to that default fair price shop licence of petitioner was only put under suspension, whereas licence was cancelled on the grounds referred above.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in impugned order to show that findings given therein are perverse.

15. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :-26.04.2023

AK