Allahabad High Court
Radha Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 December, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19876 of 2020 Petitioner :- Radha Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned cancellation order dated 4.8.2020 passed by the second respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended 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. 22 of 2020, under Section 3/7 E.C.Act without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the entire procedure given in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 as well as Control Order 2004, has given go-bye while passing the order impugned though detailed explanation 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. He lastly submits that in the aforesaid criminal proceeding, the final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the competent court wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner regarding black-marketing were found to be incorrect.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and as per provisions of agreement, there is automatic suspension of a fair price shop agent if she has been arrested in some criminal case as such no interference is required in the order 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.
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. A bare perusal of the impugned order this much is clearly reflected that at no point of time the explanation submitted by the petitioner has ever been dealt with by the Licensing Authority independently. The authority concerned has passed the order impugned without application of mind merely on the basis of F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner. The order must be passed after recording reason and in absence of any such reason, the order is liable to be quashed.
In the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that once the charges levelled against the petitioner were found incorrect in criminal proceeding and final report has been submitted before the competent authority, in such situation, justice demands the petitioner may be accorded one more indulgence by the Authority.
Accordingly, the order impugned is hereby set aside. The petitioner may file a detailed objection within two weeks from today. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019 within two months thereafter.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 2.12.2020 A.K.Srivastava