Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181481
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12172 of 2020
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Srivastava,Anil Kumar Tiwari,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,Vishal Tandon
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by District Supply Officer, respondent no. 3 and the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by Joint Commissioner Food Division Meerut in Appeal No. 5 of 2018-19.
ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to give effect to the order dated dated 04.12.2018 passed by District Supply Officer, respondent no. 3 and the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by Joint Commissioner Food Division Meerut in Appeal No. 5 of 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted fair price shop at Tehsill Khekda, District Baghpat. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the license of the fair price shop has been canceled on the ground that the charges as levelled against him are accepted to him as no reply has been filed by the petitioner and the appeal against it has also been dismissed without considering the fact that non filing of reply in pursuance to the notice issued against the petitioner would not amount to admission of the charges as levelled against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that simply because the petitioner had not submitted a reply it could not be taken that he did not intend to rebut the allegations made against him. The enquiry ought to have been undergone and, thereafter, upon finding that the petitioner was guilty only then the license should have been cancelled. In the instant case learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when no enquiry was undergone it could not simply be presumed by the punishing authority that because the petitioner did not submit his reply the charges were proved.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Case of Lal Bahadur Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others [2016(10) ADJ 378] and judgments dated 11.03.2011, 03.05.2016, 23.12.2022 and 21.12.2021 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 13563 of 2011 (Ashmohammad Vs. State of U.P. and other), Writ C No. 16848 of 2014 (Jagdish Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), Writ C No. 34716 of 2022 (Somnath Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) and Writ C No. 26208 of 2020 (Prem Prakash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) wherein similar controversy was dealt with at length.
The learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the District Supply Officer and the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner Food Division Meerut are hereby quashed.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the petitioner shall file a detailed reply along with the relevant documents to which he wants to rely on within three weeks' from today before the District Supply Officer along with a certified copy of this order, who shall consider and decide the aforesaid matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months thereafter, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023
Arti
