Asma Khan vs State of U.P.and others

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.09.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in Appeal No. 276/07 as well as the order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector, Raniganj, Pratapgarh by means of which the license of the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the license of the petitioner''s fair price shop was suspended by order dated 31.07.2000 against which he had preferred the appeal which was dismissed by order dated 26.02.2002, the petitioner feeling aggrieved had filed the writ petition no. 1151 (M/S) of 2002, in which an interim order was passed on 18.04.2002, by means of which the operation of the impugned order dated 26.02.2002 was stayed. In compliance of the said order the petitioner was allowed to continue to operate the fair price shop subsequently by means of the impugned order dated 09.08.2007 the license of the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled.

The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the stay granted by this Court in writ petition no. 1151 (M/S) of 2002 the authorities had no power to pass the cancellation order. It has been further submitted that against the order dated 09.08.2007 the petitioner had preferred the appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and the appellate authority without considering the relevant material on record and without properly appreciating the contention raised in the appeal had dismissed the appeal by order dated 22.09.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that by means of the letter dated 16.07.2007, the Sub Divisional Officer, Raniganj, Pratapgarh had directed the petitioner to furnish certain documents to the Supply Inspector or his steno otherwise the license of the shop will be suspended, however, the authority without proper application of mind had cancelled the license, which was illegal. It has been further submitted that as per the rules the inquiry should be done by the S.D.O. himself and he could relied on the report submitted by any subordinate authority.

The learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has submitted that writ petition no. 1151 (M/S) of 2002 was filed against the suspension of the license of the fair price shop of the petitioner and by means of interim order the operation of the suspension order dated 26.02.2002 was stayed, however, the proceedings in pursuance of the suspension order were not stayed and the authorities were fully competent to continue with the inquiry and bring them to a logical end. It has also been submitted that in the inquiry the petitioner was provided full opportunity and the petitioner had also participated for submitting his explanation and the notice was also issued to the petitioner by submitting his reply on the fact finding inquiry report.

It has been further informed by the learned Standing Counsel that the allegations made in the complaints were serious in nature and in the inquiry they were found proved and in view of that the competent authority had rightly reached to a conclusion that the petitioner had not performed his work itself with respect to the distribution of the essential commodities to the card holders properly, therefore, his license is liable to be cancelled.

Before the appellate authority the petitioner had raised various submissions which were duly considered by the appellate authority and it was also observed by the appellate authority that several criminal cases have been registered against the husband of the petitioner, the people in the area are not able to come openly against the petitioner and the petitioner is involved in blackmailing of essential commodities.

I have considered the various submissions made by the parties and I am of the considered opinion that by means of the interim order dated 18.04.2002 passed in writ petition no. 1151 (M/S) of 2002, the operation of the impugned dated 26.02.2002 was stayed, i.e., the order by means of which the suspension of the license of fair price shop of the petitioner was made and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within one week. It seems that in compliance of the said order the license of the petitioner was restored and he was allowed to continue the fair price shop.

It is clear from the records that a complaint was made on Tehsil Diwas dated 29.05.2007 against the petitioner on which a fact finding inquiry was ordered. After receiving of the inquiry report by letter dated 11.06.2007 the petitioner was directed to submit her reply. By the letter dated 11.06.2007(Annexure no.7 to the writ petition) the charges were disclosed against the petitioner and she was required to submit her reply within 10 days. The petitioner by letter dated 18.06.2007 had submitted her reply. Thereafter by letter dated 16.07.2007 the S.D.M. Raniganj had directed the petitioner to furnish certain documents within three days before the Supply Inspector or his steno otherwise the license of the shop would be suspended. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the said letter on 18.07.2007 indicating therein that all the relevant documents have already been submitted and the inquiry may be completed.

From the perusal of the order dated 09.08.2007 it is very much clear that the competent authority had considered the reply of the petitioner and on the basis of the records he had come to the conclusion that her license of the fair price shop shall be cancelled and accordingly the cancellation order was passed. It is clear from the record that the earlier suspension order dated 26.02.2002 was with respect to some other complaints and the cancellation order has been passed on the basis of the complaint made on ''Tehsil Diwal'' dated 29.05.2007, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the interim order passed in the writ petition no. 1151 (M/S) of 2002 the opposite parties had no authority to pass cancellation order has no force.

So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the letter dated 16.07.2007, the S.D.O. had only issued notices for suspension of the license whereas by means of the impugned order the license has been cancelled is concerned I am of the considered opinion that the said letter was written by the S.D.M. Raniganj, Pratapgarh to the petitioner for furnishing certain documents such as the Public Distribution Register for the month of April, May and June 2007 with respect to sugar and kerosene oil which were required during the inquiry proceeding and it was provided that in case the said documents are not furnished by the petitioner then the license of the petitioner would be suspended, it does not mean that the authorities were not empowered to pass the cancellation order as they had only issued the notice for suspension. From the order under challenge it is evident that the petitioner was provided full opportunity and the various contention raised in the explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as in the appeal was duly considered by the opposite parties.

I have gone through the record and from the orders under challenge it is clear that they have been passed by the competent authorities. The S.D.M. Raniganj, Pratapgarh while passing the impugned cancellation order had considered the entire material on record including the fact finding inquiry report and while doing so he had not committed any irregularity or illegality.

In view of the above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities which are challenged under the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.