Lal Chand vs State of U.P and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 18.7.2007 and 24.3.2007, Annexures 7 and 5 respectively to the writ petition passed by respondents No. 3 and 2 respectively.

It appears that against the petitioner, who was a fair price shop licence holder, on a complaint made by a person, the Supply Inspector made an inquiry and submitted a report. The Licensing Authority after due satisfaction of the report submitted by the Supply Inspector, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner by order dated 27.5.2006 levelling certain charges that the petitioner is not distributing the goods to the various card holders and the Kerosene Oil is being given on payment of Rs. 12/- per litre. The petitioner was asked to submit a reply. The petitioner submitted the reply and denied the charges. The competent authority on the basis of relevant record and on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner was satisfied that the petitioner has not distributed the goods according to the terms and conditions of the license, as such was pleased to cancel the license of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal vide it''s order dated 18.7.2006, holding therein that after submission of the reply and documents, the competent authority again directed the Supply Inspector to verify the facts on the basis of the reply and documents and then on that basis, it was proved that the petitioner has committed irregularities in distributing the goods, therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry prior to the show cause notice against the petitioner, has been done behind the back of the petitioner. Further submission has been made that in the show cause notice, only five charges have been mentioned, but in the order various other charges have been included. The findings to this effect by the Appellate Authority that any further inquiry was made after submission of the reply is also not correct. As such the order passed by the authorities below are liable to be quashed.

On the other hand learned Standing Counsel filed a counter affidavit and submits that a complaint was received on 19.4.2006 against the petitioner alleging that there is no proper distribution of the goods. After receiving the complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the Supply Inspector to enquire into the matter. Thereafter, the matter was enquired and report was submitted finding therein that the charges levelled against the petitioner appears to be correct. On the basis of the aforesaid report a charge sheet was given to the petitioner directing the petitioner to submit his explanation regarding the allegation but the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the charge sheet. Therefore, subsequently, the license of the petitioner was suspended and the petitioner was directed to submit a reply, but explanation of the petitioner was submitted on 31.1.2007. After careful examination of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority was satisfied that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved and there is no proper distribution of the essential commodities. After recording this finding, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The Appellate Court has also considered the same and has also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition, as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it clearly appears that on the basis of the complaint, an inquiry was made and prima-facie it was found that the petitioner has contravened the conditions of the license and has not properly distributed the essential commodities to the card-holders. Therefore, a charge sheet was given to the petitioner for submitting a reply. The petitioner submitted a reply and that has been considered by the competent authority. From the record, it is also clear that the licensing authority after receiving the explanation as well as the documents submitted by the petitioner re-delegated the matter to the Supply Inspector for verifying the fact regarding the genuineness of the complaint on the basis of the record submitted by the petitioner. After that the Licensing Authority found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved that he has not distributed the essential commodities in accordance with the terms and conditions and various persons have not been distributed the BPL goods and the Kerosene Oil is being distributed on higher price. The Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding to this effect that after submission of the reply, the Licensing Authority has made further inquiry regarding the genuineness of the complaint, therefore, by no means the order passed by the Licensing Authority can be said to be faulted. Holding this finding the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid fact, I find that the findings recorded by both the authorities below are based on evidence on record Therefore, it cannot be held that there is any discrepancy or illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.

Interim order, if any, is hereby discharged.