Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/395/2021 on 25 February, 2021
WPMS No.395 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. along with Mr.
Mohinder Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.
Heard.
The petitioner contends that he was granted a fair price
shop license, for running the fair price shop situated in
Nirmal Nagar, but on account of certain anomalies and a
complaint dated 13.04.2020, which was registered against
him, alleging a short supply of the rice to the card holders,
which was supposed to be supplied to the consumers, his
license was put to suspension by the Licensing Authority
i.e. the District Magistrate/District Supply Officer. As
against the order of suspension dated 27.05.2020, the
petitioner had preferred an appeal, as had been provided
under the Control Orders and the Government Orders,
issued from time to time, and the said appeal has been
dismissed by one of the impugned judgments dated
24.12.2020, whereby the appellate authority has directed
the petitioner to approach before the Licensing Authority,
by filing a reply, in order to conclude the inquiry, as it has
been directed in the suspension order by the appointing
Tehsildar as an Inquiry Officer. The relevant finding is
quoted hereunder:-
(a) vr%iwfrZfujh{kd flrkjxa
t dh vk[;k o lyXu c;kuks adsvk/kkj ij
foØsrk}kjkcjrhx;hvfu;ferrkij foØs rkgjizlkn fueZyuxj dhmfpr
nj nqd ku dsvuq cU/k i= dksfuyfEcr djrsgq , dk;kZy; i= la [;k
[email protected] jktLo vuqHkkx & rr̀h;@ xi ¼04½@ 2020 fnuka
d 11 ebZ2020 ds
vuqikyu esafoØs
rk dh lLrk xYyk nqd ku dh foLrr̀ tka
p gsrqrglhynkj
flrkjxa
t dkstkap vf/kdkjhukfer fd;ktkrkgS A
(b) mijksDr foos
puk dsvk/kkj ij vihy vka f"kd :i lsLohdkj dh tkrh
gS
A ftykf/kdkjh] m/kefla guxj }kjk i=a kd [email protected] ft0iw [email protected] nq d ku
[email protected] 2020&21 fnukad 27-5-2020 lsikfjr vkns "k es
afQygky gLr{ks i
djusdh vko";drk iz rhr ughagksrh] rFkkfi vihydrkZdksfuns Z
f"kr fd;k
tkrkgSfd vkns "kdhfrfFkls07 fnu dsvUnj ftykf/kdkjh]m/kefla guxj
dsle{k viuk fyf[kr Li'Vhdj.k iz Lrqr djs A ftykf/kdkjh] m/kefla
a guxj
dksfunsf"kr fd;ktkrkgSfd vihydrkZ}kjkiz
a
Z Lrq
r fyf[kr Li'Vhdj.kdk
laKku ys rsgq, rFkk vihykFkhZdkslquokbZdk ;q fDr;qDr volj iz nku djus
dsmijkUr gh iz d j.k es
avfUre fu.kZ; ysA ;fn vihydrkZ}kjk 07 fnu ds
a
vUnj viuk fyf[kr Li'Vhdj.k iz Lrq
r ughafd;k tkrk gSrksftykf/kdkjh]
m/kefla
guxj }kjk vxzs
Rrj fof/kd dk;Z
okgh iw
.kZdh tk ldsxhA ftyk iw
frZ
vf/kdkjh]m/kefla
guxj dsdk;kZ y; dhi=koyhiz R;kofrZ
r dj nhtk; vkSj
bl U;k;ky; dhi=koyhnkf[ky n¶rj dj nhtk; A
The final inquiry as against the petitioner, whether it
has yet been concluded or not, the petitioner is not in a
position to inform, but the issue at this stage since pertains
to only a suspension of the fair price shop license, pending
final inquiry before the Licensing Authority, I decline to
interfere in the exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction, qua
the suspension orders, which are under challenged, except
with the liberty and direction to the Licensing Authority to
conclude the final inquiry, which is being held against the
petitioner and take a decision on the same, within a period
of two months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
Subject to the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
25.02.2021
Rajni
