Arjun Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7270 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1220 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Arjun Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply,Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Narayan Mishra,Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajai Kumar Jaiswal
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the District Supply Officer, Rai Bareli by means of which the license of the petitioner for fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Kola Haibatpur, Vikas Khand- Rahi, District- Rai Bareli has been cancelled forfeiting the amount of security and the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow by means of which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed without any complaint against the petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, only on the basis of news item published in the news paper. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner annexing the copy of the enquiry report prior to passing the order of cancellation of license. Relying on the Government Order dated 05.08.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without any complaint supported with an affidavit, the action could not have been taken against the petitioner. He also submitted that no complaint was made by Card Holders. Thus the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment and order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the larger Bench in Writ Petition No.32679 (M/S) of 2019; Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others.

3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the action against the petitioner has rightly been taken after spot inspection taking cognizance of the news item published in the news paper. On the basis of spot inspection and the statement of several card holders the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He further submits that four family members of the petitioner including the wife of the petitioner have been found to have Antyodya Card for the last three years whereas they were not eligible for the same. He also submits that the enquiry, as contemplated for taking action in regard to the Fair Price Shop, is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry has been held in accordance with law and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Fair Price Shop license of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled in accordance with law, therefore there is no illegality or error in it. The appeal has also rightly been dismissed in accordance with law. The petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The petitioner was a Fair Price Shop licensee of Village Panchayat- Kola Haibatpur, Vikas Khand- Rahi, District- Rai Bareli. A news item was published in the daily news paper Amar Ujala on 24.11.2019; "कोटेदार ने परिवार का कार्ड बना लाखो का राशन डकारा". Taking cognizance of the said new item, the then Supply Inspector made a spot inspection. In the spot inspection 17 villagers gave a combined written statement regarding irregularity in distribution by the petitioner and that there are three sons of the petitioner namely Amrendra Mishra, Pankaj Mishra and Brijdev Mishra. Poonam wife of Amrendra, Brijdev Mishra and Pankaj Mishra have Antyodya Cards and Indra Kumari wife of Arjun Prasad (petitioner-Fair Price shop dealer) has also got Antyodya Ration Card. They have separate living and land. Amrendra Mishra has also a tractor. They have Antyodya Cards for the last three years. The written statement of the petitioner was also taken, in which he admitted the same. On the basis of irregularities being committed by the petitioner found in the enquiry after approval by the District Magistrate, the Fair Price Shop license of the petitioner was suspended by means of the order dated 28.12.2019 and he was afforded opportunity to submit his explanation in regard to the charges alongwith evidence and distribution register of last six months etc.

6. The petitioner had not submitted the reply within the time granted to him and made a request for 15 days time by means of the letter dated 30.12.2019 on the ground of illness. After lapse of aforesaid period, by means of the letter dated 24.01.2020 a reminder was issued granting last opportunity to the petitioner to submit the reply. Even thereafter the petitioner had not submitted the reply, therefore he was afforded opportunity by means of the letter dated 02.07.2020. Even thereafter he had not submitted the reply, therefore he was afforded a last opportunity by means of the letter dated 16.07.2020, which was received by him on 17.07.2020. Thereafter the petitioner submitted the reply on 22.09.2020 alongwith affidavit annexing certain affidavits. Therefore, it can not be said that the opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner.

7. The, affidavits submitted by the petitioner in his support were verified on 09.10.2020, in which five card holders were found on the spot namely Smt. Ramawati wife of Chaube, Smt. Nirmala wife of Sukhram, Smt. Noorjahan wife of Idrees, Smt. Shyamawati wife of Kallu and Smt. Naimunnisha, whereas the remaining four were not found. Smt. Ramawati stated that now she is getting the complete ration but earlier it was not being given. Smt. Nirmala also said that earlier lesser ration was being given. In the earlier spot inspection, on the basis of which show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, out of 18 card holders, 15 card holders have stated that the lesser food grains are being distributed by the petitioner. The petitioner had not submitted any reply in regard to the remaining card holders, except nine out of which four were not found during verification. The petitioner had also not annexed the documentary evidence such as distribution register, photo copy of the ration cards etc., which could prove that the food grains were being distributed in the correct quantity and on the fixed price.

8. In view of above, it is apparent that wife of the petitioner, two sons of the petitioner and one daughter-in-law were having Antyodya Ration Cards, whereas they were not entitled and eligible for the said ration card, on account of which the same were cancelled after knowledge of it, which has been admitted by the petitioner, but the petitioner despite having knowledge that his family members are not entitled for the Antyodya Ration Cards, had not made any complaint or got cancelled them and benefitted them, whereas as per the National Food Safety Act, 2013 they were in exclusion criteria.

9. The order of cancellation of Fair Price Shop license dated 11.11.2020 has been passed after considering the grounds taken by the petitioner and also recording that the petitioner has not submitted the relevant documents such as distribution register, photo copy of ration cards etc., which may have verified the correct distribution of the ration and on fixed price. Even otherwise it is not disputed that four family members of the petitioner were having Antyodya Ration Cards, whereas they were not entitled and eligible for the same. The petitioner knowing it well not only benefited them but concealed it also which only is sufficient for cancellation of the license of the petitioner.

10. The plea of the petitioner that sufficient opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner and the show cause notice has not been issued is not tenable for the reason that the show cause notice dated 28.12.2019 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter three reminders dated 24.01.2020, 02.07.2020 and 16.07.2020 were issued and served. Thereafter the petitioner had submitted the reply on 22.09.2020 and despite affording opportunity to submit the distribution register etc. the petitioner had not submitted the same. Therefore, the ground taken by the petitioner is not tenable and this Court is of the view that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner.

11. One of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the action has been taken without any complaint supported with an affidavit therefore it is in violation of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. Perusal of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 contained in annexure no.8 to the writ petition indicates that paragraph-1 of the Government Order refers to the enquiry of the complaints received in regard to the Fair Price Shop. Sub paragraph-(1) refers to the complaints which may be made. Sub paragraph-(2) provides the procedure which may be adopted in regard to the complaints received as referred in sub paragraph-(1). In the case in hand the action has been taken on the basis of spot inspection taking cognizance of a news item published in the news paper. Paragraph-2 of the Government Order refers to the action against the Fair Price Shop. It provides that the District Supply Officer is empowered for inspection of Fair Price Shop and penal action. The Sub Divisional Officer is also empowered to make inspection under his Tehsil and may send his report to the District Magistrate for action who after opinion of the District Supply Officer may direct to take action and after receiving the written orders the Sub Divisional Officer may also take action. Sub paragraph-(3) of paragraph-2 of the Government Order provides that in case of inspection of the Fair Price Shop by the Officers of the Food Department / Officer of the District Administration / other authorised persons, in case the irregularities are found then the action may be taken by the Sub Divisional Officer after approval by the District Magistrate and by the District Supply Officer on his own. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable and the action has rightly been taken after inspection and approval by the District Magistrate.

12. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Shankar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others; in Writ Petition No.32679 (M/S) of 2019, while answering the questions referred to the larger bench has answered that the enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry. The question preferred in the said case are extracted here-in-below:-

"(a) What are the parameters of principles of natural justice to be followed in inquiries conducted by Licensing Authority on complaints of irregularities in the distribution of Essential Commodities?

(b) Whether the observation made in Paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 UPLBED 947 regarding holding of "full fledged enquiry" after suspension of license can be read in such a manner as would require the whole gamut of steps required in disciplinary proceedings of Government servants to be followed?"

The answers given by the larger Bench (Division Bench) are extracted here-in-below:-

"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."

13. In view of above and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that action against the petitioner has rightly been taken on the basis of spot inspection, taking cognizance of the news item published in news paper, in which statement of card holders were recorded and after affording sufficient opportunity, therefore there is no illegality or error in the impugned orders. The writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which is liable to be dismissed.

14. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)

Order Date :- 14.3.2023

Haseen U.