Allahabad High Court
Hari Prakash Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33575 of 2021
Petitioner :- Hari Prakash Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ujjawal Satsangi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
In the present case, impugned order was passed whereby appeal of the petitioner under Section 13 (1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was rejected after it was remanded by an order passed by this Court on 20.7.2021 to decide afresh after considering all the grounds raised in appeal.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that still appeal of petitioner was decided on the ground that he failed to file reply before licensing authority and without considering grounds mentioned in appeal and further with finding that author of some affidavits have denied contents or knowledge of their respective affidavits by ex-parte inquiry conducted during pending appeal.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was not granted any opportunity when inquiry was conducted for verification of contents of affidavits by their respective authors.
Above submissions are opposed by learned Standing Counsel who submits that petitioner has tried to play fraud and has filed affidavit which has been denied by their respective authors.
In order to consider rival submissions, I have carefully perused impugned order.
While discussing the matter, appellate authority has taken note that petitioner has not filed any reply to the show cause notice. However, appellate authority went further and on basis of an inquiry to verify contents of affidavit filed by petitioner that there was no complaint against petitioner it was found that out of 23, nine card holders have denied contents of their alleged affidavits and signatures thereof.
Argument that before giving any finding, petitioner was required to be part of inquiry has no legal basis. As petitioner is only a licensee.
In this regard, Division Bench of this Court while sitting at Lucknow in Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, in Misc. Single No.32679 of 2019 decided on 8.12.2021 in a referred matter regarding the extent of inquiry that should be undertaken prior to suspension/cancellation of fair price shop license has considered judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Puran Singh & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2010 (2) UPLBED 947 and reached following conclusion:
"(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."
Petitioner being a licensee has only a limited right to oppose show cause notice and for that adherence of substantial compliance of principles of natural justice is required.
The number of affidavits of card holders were filed without knowledge of their respective authors. Petitioner has tried to misled the authorities. Even on a single complaint, license of petitioner can be cancelled.
In the present case, petitioner has tried to mislead the authority, but there are complaints against petitioner that he has committed irregularity in distribution of food grains which were substantiated during inquiry. There is no material except vague averment to contradict the finding and allegations of irregularity in distribution of food grains, which are not sufficient to interfere with impugned order.
I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
SB
