Babulal Rajpurohit vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 17.8.2009 passed by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur, whereby the licence of the petitioner for authorised fair price shop has been cancelled and security deposit forfeited, order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the District Collector, Nagaur whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner and order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Food Commissioner, Jaipur, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner have been rejected.

The petitioner was granted licence dated 5.3.1993 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, the same was renewed from time to time.

By order dated 24.10.2008 passed on a complaint received against the petitioner, which was got examined by the Enforcement Officer, wherein the petitioner was found prima facie guilty of serious irregularities, his licence was suspended. The petitioner filed response to the same and claimed that the complaint was without any substance as when on 7.9.2008 the petitioner was distributing kerosene, the lost ration card of Smt. Sohini W/o Govind was brought by Hemraj and when the petitioner refused to distribute the kerosene, the same resulted in altercation and cross criminal cases, which has resulted in filing of the complaint.

It was further indicated that the petitioner was duly following all the requirements and as on the date when the Enforcement Officer came for inspection, the same could not be undertaken as he was busy with the court proceedings. The District Supply Officer by order dated 17.8.2009, came to the conclusion that during the course of inspection, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jata Bas on behalf of the villagers has opposed the dealer; the non-supply of wheat and kerosene to the card holders amounts to misappropriation; the reply filed by the petitioner has been examined and as per the enquiry made by the Enforcement Officer, the dealer has been found highly controversial and therefore, there was no justification to continue the licence and consequently, cancelled the same and forfeited the security deposit.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the District Collector, Nagaur, the appeal was rejected by the District Collector vide order dated 6.1.2010 and whereafter, the revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Food Commissioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below were not justified in cancelling the licence of the petitioner and dismissing the appeal/revision preferred by the petitioner and the orders impugned deserve to be set-aside.

It was submitted that the principal charge against the petitioner pertains to altercation with Hemraj regarding whom it was the specific case of the petitioner that Hemraj and his wife, sought distribution of kerosene based on a ration card, which was reported lost, which when denied led to altercation and said Hemraj while leaving the shop with the intervention of persons standing there, took away the registers from the shop. The inspection was conducted by the Food Inspector on 21.10.2008 and it was reported that the shop was found closed, when in-fact in the cross FIR filed by Hemraj under the provisions of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the petitioner was under arrest on the said date. It is further submitted that the record clearly indicates that the petitioner had supplied all the relevant material when sought including the available registers except for the current registers, which were taken away by Hemraj and therefore, the petitioner cannot be punished for the said aspect.

It was further submitted that in the cross criminal cases filed by the petitioner and Hemraj, by judgments dated 24.1.2013, while Hemraj and Teji Devi have been found guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and have been given benefit of probation, the petitioner has been acquitted in the cross FIR lodged by Hemraj, which clearly goes to show that the entire incident which led to cancellation of the licence and the basis thereof was non-existent and the petitioner has been punished for no fault of his.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

It was inter-alia submitted that all the three authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct in operating licenced shop and as such, no interference in this regard is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

It is apparent that the entire dispute arose on account of some altercation which took place between Hemraj and the petitioner, which lead to filing of cross FIRs. The petitioner in his FIR, which was lodged at 1:00 p.m. on 7.9.2008 i.e. the date of incident (Annex.2) clearly indicated about the altercation with Hemraj and the fact that while leaving the shop, Hemraj took away the sale registers. The cross FIR was lodged by Hemraj also on 7.9.2008 and the petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2008. The stock and distribution registers, which were available, were handed-over to the District Supply Officer, which is apparent from Annex.5.

The principal allegations made against the petitioner, which is apparent from the order passed by the District Supply Officer dated 17.8.2009, pertain to non-supply of wheat and kerosene, his behaviour with the consumers and that the shop was found closed on the date of inspection besides non-production of registers from January, 2008. From the order, it is apparent that the inspection took place on 21.10.2008 and as noticed herein-before as petitioner was under arrest on 21.10.2008 and therefore, it was quite natural that the shop was found closed on that day. Further it was the specific case of the petitioner that Hemraj, while going away on 7.9.2008, took away the registers, which fact was specifically indicated by him in the FIR, and the District Supply Officer in the impugned order dated 17.8.2009 apparently on account of the fact that from January, 2008, the petitioner did not produce the stock and distribution register, came to the conclusion that the wheat and kerosene were not distributed. The said fact is also apparent from Annex.5 of the reply filed by the respondents. All the three authorities have apparently ignored the fact that on 21.10.2008, during inspection the shop was found closed as the petitioner was in detention of the police on account of the FIR lodged by Hemraj and on that count, the shop was found closed on 21.10.2008.

Further another reason indicated for cancellation of the licence apparently is alleged non-distribution of the wheat and kerosene by the petitioner, which finding has also been arrived at on account of non-production of stock and distribution register, for which also the specific case of the petitioner was that the said registers were taken way by Hemraj.

The ground regarding misbehaviour and/or altercation by the petitioner with the consumers also stands concluded by the judgments delivered in the case of cross FIRs lodged by the petitioner and Hemraj, wherein while Hemraj has been found guilty, the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Courts.

The District Supply Officer without apparently considering essential facts, has come to the conclusion that the dealer has been found quite controversial and therefore, cancelled the licence. In the appeal, the District Collector in his order dated 6.1.2010 took essential cognizance of fact that on 21.10.2008, during the course of inspection, the shop was found closed, consumers complained against the petitioner and the petitioner did not produce the required documents. The revisional authority before whom the fact of petitioner''s arrest on 21.10.2008 was pointed out, wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was arrested on 7.9.2008 and on 21.10.2008, the petitioner did not produce the required documents during the course of inspection and that the shop was closed.

In the overall circumstances of the case, it is apparent that all the three authorities without a objective consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, which led to the complaints and consequential cancellation has merely on conjecture and based on the report of the Enforcement Officer, which was prepared on a day when the petitioner was in police custody, could not have formed basis for passing of the impugned orders cancelling the licence of the petitioner and dismissal of his appeal/revision. The apparent innocence of the petitioner is also fortified from the judgments of the criminal Courts in the cross FIRs lodged by the petitioner and Hemraj, wherein while the petitioner has been acquitted, Hemraj has been found guilty of offence under Section 323 IPC.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves acceptance and is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.8.2009 (Annex.6) passed by the District Supply Officer, Nagaur; order dated 6.10.2010 (Annex.8) passed by the District Collector, Nagaur and order dated 1.6.2012 (Annex.9) passed by the Food Commissioner, Jaipur are set-aside with consequential relief to the petitioner.