Allahabad High Court
Virendra Singh Son Of Shri Manohar Singh vs Commissioner, Allahabad Division, ... on 17 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(2)AWC1540
Author: Vineet Saran
Bench: Vineet Saran
JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. In the year 1980 the petitioner was granted adjacency of a fair Village Udai Sarain, Block Bhitaura, Tahsil and District Fatehpur which he has since then been running. According to the petitioner there has never been any complaint against the functioning of the fair price shop of the petitioner. By order dated 14.2.2001 passed by respondent No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled merely on the ground that in the year 2000 the wife of the petitioner had been elected as Up-Pradhan of the Village and thus as per the provisions of paragraph 4.7 of the Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 the petitioner cannot hold the fair price shop licence. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was also dismissed by a short order dated 10.4.2001 stating that since the order has been passed in accordance with the Government Order, no interference is called for with the order of the licensing authority. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 14.2.2001 and 10.4.2001 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri S.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the contesting parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The submission of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that the impugned order cancelling his licence has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and secondly, that the Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner as it only deals with grant of fresh licence of the fair price shops and not to the existing ones.
4. It is not denied that the impugned order dated 10.2.2001 has been passed by respondent No. 2 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. It is a well established principle of natural justice that in case if any right, which has accrued in favour of a person, has to be withdrawn, such person ought to be given a notice and an opportunity of hearing before any such order is withdrawn. In the absence of any such opportunity having been given to the petitioner, the said order as well as the appellate order, are both liable to be quashed.
5. Even otherwise, the second submission of the petitioner also has force. On perusal of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990, which has been filed as Annexure-C.A.3 to the counter affidavit, it is clear that it relates to fresh allotment of fair price shops in the rural areas. It does not relate to the existing fair price shops. Undisputely, the petitioner was an existing licensee of the fair price shop and it is not the case of the respondents that fresh allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner.
6. Paragraph 4.7 of the said Government Order only states that no proposal for allotment of the fair price shop shall be made in favour of the family members and relatives of the Gram Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of the village. The definition of family has also been given in the said paragraph of the Government order. In the present case there is no question of any proposal having been made in favour of the petitioner for allotment of any shop. The petitioner was an existing licensee of the fair price shop. There is no provision in the Government Order to cancel the licences of those who were related to the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan who were subsequently elected. As such, the Government Order would not be applicable to the cases of existing licences of the fair price shop. The impugned orders passed against the petitioner cancelling his already existing licence are accordingly liable to be quashed on this ground also.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the orders dated 14.2.2001 and 10.4.2001 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed. This writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.