Satendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3655 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Judgment Reserved on 1.2.2023
 
Delivered on  6. 2.2023.
 
Court No. - 34 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 205 of 2023 
 

 
Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar 
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 

1. Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner is a fair price shop licensee and is aggrieved by impugned order dated 25.11.2022, whereby license of petitioner was suspended, based on a preliminary inquiry report submitted by Tehsildar on a surprise inspection, though not being a designated authority or competent authority under relevant provisions to conduct preliminary inquiry.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his above submission has placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.26269 of 2020, (Anita Devi Vs. State of U.P. Ors), decided on 21.4.2022.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has placed on record a Government Order dated 24.9.2022 wherein number of Nodal Officers were assigned to inspect fair price shop and to submit report to the authority concerned, which includes Naib Tehsildar also. He further submits that at the stage of preliminary inquiry, petitioner has no lis and all contentions can be raised during inquiry initiated in pursuance of suspension order.

5. Petitioner has rushed to this Court at the stage of suspension which was passed by competent authority on basis of a preliminary report conducted by the Tehsildar.

6. There is no dispute that petitioner has liberty to raise all contentions available to him in accordance with law during inquiry.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon Anita Devi (supra) which was passed after the remedy available to petitioner was exhausted i.e. after filing appeal as provided under U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016.

8. In Anita Devi (supra) Government Order dated 24.2.2022 referred above has also not been considered being issued later in time.

9. In the present case, a preliminary report was submitted after an inspection was conducted as well as after recording statements of various card holders by the Tehsildar. The submission of counsel for petitioner is that Tehsildar is not a competent authority or designated authority. However, designated authority as defined under U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 also incudes any officer authorized by the State Government.

10. There is no prejudice caused to the petitioner that preliminary inquiry report was submitted by the Tehsildar. By Government Order dated 24.9.2022, even Naib Tehsidar has been empowered to make inspection of fair price shops and to report to concerned authority. Otherwise also, there may be a irregularity in conducting a preliminary inquiry by a Tehsildar, but it cannot be an illegality, since petitioner has no lis to challenge it, as he is not associated with preliminary inquiry.

11. In view of above discussion, prayers are rejected and writ petition is disposed of with direction that in case petitioner files a reply to show cause notice issued to him along with suspension order within a period of four weeks from today, authority concerned shall conclude the inquiry in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

Order Date:-6.2.2023

SB