Jai Ram Verma vs State of U.P. and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing counsel.

Petitioner, feeling aggrieved with the cancellation of licence of fair price shop by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri affirmed by appellate authority, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

From the material on record, it appears that the petitioner is fair price shop dealer of village Panchayat Basara. The fair price shop of Bhulanpur was attached with the petitioner''s fair price shop. After receipt of complaint, the SDM had suspended the petitioner''s fair price shop licence by order dated 26.5.2006. A show cause notice dated 30.5.2006 was served on the petitioner. In response to which petitioner submitted a reply. However, it appears that fair price shop licence has been cancelled on the basis of report submitted by Supply Inspector. Though the statement of villager supported the petitioner''s case that the petitioner had not committed irregularity in disbursement of commodities but even then licence has been cancelled. It has been stated by the SDM that earlier also the petitioner''s fair price shop licence was suspended by order dated 19.1.2005 and security was confiscated.

While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that licence has been cancelled in violation of principle of natural justice. It appears that evidence was recorded by the Supply Inspector behind back of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to cross examine the witnesses whose statement has been relied upon by the SDM. The statement which has been relied upon by the SDM since recorded behind the back of the petitioner without opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, could not have been made a ground for suspension or cancellation of fair price shop licence.

Principle of natural justice is the part and parcel of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The evidence and material relied upon by the SDM should have been supplied to the petitioner and also the petitioner should have been given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who have made statement before the Supply Inspector. No oral evidence could have been relied upon by the SDM recorded behind the back of petitioner.

It is settled proposition of law that during the course of enquiry in case some oral evidence is recorded then opportunity to cross examine should be provided. While filing counter affidavit State has also not pleaded anywhere that statement was recorded with due compliance of principle of natural justice i.e. with opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. It appears that only show cause notice was issued relying upon the statement recorded behind back and later on impugned orders were passed. Before serving show cause notice at no stage of enquiry the petitioner was called on to submit a reply on the basis of material furnished in chargesheet. Entire proceeding vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Appellate authority had also not considered this aspect of the matter. Forfeiture of security on account of certain allegations independent of the enquiry in question shall not create a ground to cancel the petitioner''s fair price shop licence. The decision should have been taken from the charges which has been served on the petitioner independently. Previous conduct may be a ground to decide the quantum of punishment but it shall not be decisive and taken into account to punish the fair price shop dealer.

In view of above, writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 23.8.2007 and 6.6.2006 passed by the authorities with consequential benefits. The petitioner''s fair price shop shall be restored forthwith. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.