Allahabad High Court
Suryakant vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10003 of 2023
Petitioner :- Suryakant
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Madan Mohan,Prem Sagar Verma
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a fair price shop. On account of political rivalry, some complaints were made which led to passing of the show cause notice-cum-suspension order 26.05.2022 wherein allegations were levelled that on the basis of inquiry, it was revealed that certain persons were not being given the ration in time. The statements of the persons relied upon, included the name of one Veeru, whereas the said person died even before the date, as such, prima facie, the inquiry was a sham inquiry. The petitioner gave a reply denying each of the allegations levelled. Thereafter, the order impugned has been passed.
From the perusal of the order impugned, the authority has recorded the contents of the show cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner and without analysing the defence taken in the said reply, it was recorded that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not found to be satisfactory and the order of cancellation was passed.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the manner of passing the order is indicated in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. He further argues that the order impugned, without any basis by merely observing that the reply filed is not satisfactory fails the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further argues that even the contention that the statement of the persons based upon which proceedings were initiated has died and thus, it is nothing but a sham inquiry, has not even been considered and lastly argued that burden of proving of charges levelled against the petitioner is on the department and in the present case, the order has been passed treating the burden as reverse burden which is contrary to the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 and is in violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned Standing Counsel argues that an appeal lies against the said order.
The Counsel for the petitioner argues that where the order fails to adhere the principles of natural justice, the petitioner is well within its right to approach this Court. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; (1998) 8 SCC 1.
Considering the submissions made at the bar, it is clear that the order is a non-speaking order. It does not record any reason whatsoever and has been passed merely by recording that the objections submitted by the petitioner were not found to be satisfactory. The said clearly falls short of the requirement of a valid order in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the order impugned dated 03.02.2023 is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Licensing Authority to pass fresh order considering the submissions made by the petitioner including the fact that the statement of Veeru allegedly relied upon had already died. The said order shall be passed by the Licensing Authority strictly in terms of the mandate of Government Order dated 05.08.2019 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall appear before the Licensing Authority on 05.05.2023 at 12:00 noon.
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2023
akverma
