Allahabad High Court
Smt Anita vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 December, 2022
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37931 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt Anita Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the respondent no.3/District Supply Officer, Ballia.
By the aforesaid order, the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The aforesaid order has been passed basically on the ground that an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. Normally in such kind of cases where the remedy of appeal is provided, writ petitions were not entertained by this Court. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the controversy involved is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 30.10.2009 passed in Jagdish Narain Mishra vs. State of U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28051 of 2008) has not been followed wherein the learned Judge observed as under:-
"Despite advancing lengthy arguments, learned standing counsel has failed to bring to the notice of the Court any provision either under the Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 or under any other Government Order issued either under the 2004 order or 1990 order empowering the Licensing Authority to cancel a fair price shop agreement merely on account of a dealer being involved in a criminal case. Hence the cancellation of the petitioner's agreement on the ground of his involvement in aforesaid criminal case under the Essential Commodities Act is also unsustainable."
Nothing has been brought to my attention that the said judgment has been overruled. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that the said conclusion cannot be faulted for the reason that mere filing of a F.I.R. cannot result in holding a fair price shop owner guilty of the offences charged. If there be a conviction, then it is possible to proceed, based on the conviction and not otherwise. In case if the F.I.R. is lodged, it is still open to the respondents to proceed by leading independent evidence and statements of the persons recorded.
In the instant case that has not been done. It is not possible to countenance a situation where a judgment, which is binding on the authority, is not being followed and the parties are made to seek a remedy which ordinarily they need not have to resort to if the law laid down by this Court was followed by the respondents.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jagdish Narain (Supra) I found that the cancellation of the license of the petitioner is without authority of law.
Even otherwise from the reading of the orders of the cancellation of the fair price shop of the petitioner dated 20.09.2022, the Court is of the opinion that the same has been passed without application of mind. The said order purports to cancel the license merely on the ground of lodging of an F.I.R. and that suspension is going on for a long time thereby causing inconvenience in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. The said reasons cannot be justified in law to cancel the dealership.
Consequently the orders dated 20.09.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 namely District Supply Officer, Ballia, is set aside. The respondents are directed to resume the supply of the food grains to the petitioner if there be no other contrary order. However, it shall be open to the respondents to hold an enquiry and proceed according to law.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Swati