Allahabad High Court
Shyam Narain Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 November, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Court No. - 71 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26891 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shyam Narain Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Upadhyay,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order impugned dated 22.3.2017 passed by the third respondent whereby license of the fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as appellate order dated 3.5.2019 passed by the second respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire action has been taken by the licensing authority merely on the basis of criminal case against the petitioner registered as Case Crime No. 283 of 2013, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that even a final report has been submitted by the police in the aforesaid criminal case and there is no material on record which may justify cancellation of fair price shop agreement of the petitioner. Against the cancellation order, petitioner has preferred an appeal No. 153 of 2017 before the second respondent, which too has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the material on record and as such, both the orders impugned are illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, precisely submits that the entire procedure given in the Government Order has given go-bye while passing the order impugned though detailed reply has been submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Raj Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011 LawSuit(All) 834 and Brijsewak Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2017(4) ADJ 806.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that both the courts below have proceeded strictly in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the record. It has further been submitted that as per provisions of agreement, there is automatic suspension of a fair price shop agent if he has been arrested in some criminal case as such no interference is required in the orders impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard rival submissions. The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner definitely has force. Admittedly, in the present matter at no point of time any proper enquiry has been conducted by the competent authority and merely on the basis of aforementioned F.I.R., the entire action has been taken against the petitioner and in the said case the petitioner has already been exonerated by the competent authority.
This Court is also of the opinion that mere filing of a F.I.R. cannot result in holding a fair price shop owner guilty of the offences charged. In Jagdish Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28051 of 2008), this Court while allowing the writ petition on 30.10.2009 has proceeded to observe 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. "
Similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Raj Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011 LawSuit(All)834.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the orders impugned cannot sustain and accordingly the same are set aside. The matter is relegated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur to proceed strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date of production of a copy of the order before him in terms of the reply dated 28.11.2016 filed by the petitioner and in the light of Government Order dated 5.8.2019 but certainly after affording opportunity to all the stakeholders in the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Atul/A.K.Srivastava