Allahabad High Court
Smt. Saleema vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Food ... on 17 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15665 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 144 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Saleema Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukul Kumar Sharma,Mohit Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 17.06.2023 whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 28.11.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was allotted a fair price shop and was running the same. Subsequently, on the basis of complaint made, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 25.06.2022 alleging that as many as 31 persons had given a statement alleging that the petitioner was irregular in distribution of food-grains. The petitioner gave a reply denying the said allegation by means of an exhaustive reply. Alongwith the said reply, the petitioner also filed affidavits of some of the persons who had allegedly given statement against the petitioner. It is claimed that joint statement of as many as more than 200 persons were also recorded in favour of the petitioner which was given as an evidence to substantiate the defense. Subsequently, an order came to be passed cancelling the fair price shop license on 17.06.2023 (Annexure - 2). In the said order, it is recorded that as many as more than 200 persons had given a statement that they were happy with the distribution of food-grains of the petitioner. In respect of some of the other card holders, it was recorded that they stated that when they went home and measured the food-grains given to them, the food-grains were found to be short. It was also alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was not good. Based upon the said, it was recorded that as many as 200 cardholders out of 507 card holders had given a satisfactory report in favour of the petitioner, however, 121 cardholders gave a statement and expressed their unhappiness with the petitioner. It was further recorded that thus, the defense taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted and the order of cancellation was passed. The appellate order affirmed the said order.
4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the show-cause notice, statement of 31 persons were proposed to be relied upon to which the petitioner had given a reply, however, the subsequent statements were neither confronted nor given to the petitioner at any point of time. He next argues that in any event, the statements of the persons who were allegedly dissatisfied only gave a statement with regard to the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner. With regard to the food-grains, they had stated that when they went home and measured the food-grains purchased by them, they were invariably found to be short - this fact, according to the petitioner, was never got verified from the E-POS machine. He argues that apart from the statement of 121 persons, there was no other evidence to justify the strict action of cancellation against the petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the order by arguing that large scale dissatisfaction was recorded against the petitioner as is evident from the impugned order and thus, the action of cancellation was taken, and no interference is called for under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
6. Considering the rival submissions, prima-facie, the impugned order is premised on charges which were not a charge of the show-cause notice; the evidence of the persons proposed to be relied upon in the show-cause notice was not the foundation for passing of the impugned order, and there is no material to suggest that the subsequent statements were at any point of time confronted with the petitioner, thus, the order impugned falls short of satisfying the test of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
7. As regards the other contention that the statements of the persons who are dissatisfied merely recorded that when they went home and measured the food-grains, the same were found to be short were only the statements which could have been verified on the basis of the entries made in E-POS machines, however, there appears to be no material to corroborate the allegations of the persons who were dissatisfied with the electronic record that was available. Thus, the contention on that count by the counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.
8. On totality of the orders passed, it appears that the same has been passed on the basis of counting of votes by person satisfied and dissatisfied, which is nether prescribed in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 nor can the same be made basis for cancellation of the fair price shop.
9. Thus, finding the impugned orders dated 17.06.2023 & 28.11.2023 short of satisfying the test of Art. 14 of Constitution, being in violation of principles of natural justice and perverse without there being consideration of the relevant evidence available, the same cannot be sustained and are quashed.
10. Fair price shop of the petitioner shall be restored.
11. Present petition stands allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 17.3.2025 nishant