Shahnawaj Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in District Haridwar. His fair price shop licence was cancelled by District Supply Officer on the basis of certain

complaints vide order dated 13.02.2015. Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which too was dismissed by learned Commissioner, Garhwal

Division vide order dated 04.08.2015. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions contained in Government Order dated 15.10.2005 have been violated. He further

submits that the said Government Order provides the guidelines which have to be followed while suspending/cancelling a fair price shop licence. He

further submits that remedy of appeal against cancellation order has also been provided in the said Government Order. The thrust of the submission

made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 15.10.2005, before cancelling the fair price

shop licence an inquiry has to be held by the Administrative Committee of the concerned Gram Panchayat, which has not been held in the present

case.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Clause 9 of Government Order dated 15.10.2005 lays down the procedure and provides that after

receiving any complaint against fair price shop licencee, inquiry should be held by the Administrative Committee of concerned Gram Panchayat and

thereafter the report of the Administrative Committee along with other material shall be placed before Gram Sabha in its open meeting.

In para 14 of the writ petition, petitioner has specifically pleaded that there is no evidence on record regarding constitution of Administrative

Committee and further there is nothing on record to prove that any inquiry was conducted or any notice or opportunity to participate in the proceeding

was provided to petitioner.

In para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by District Supply Officer on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, evasive reply has been given to the pleading

made in writ petition. Thus, this Court has no option but to treat the averment made in para 14 of the writ petition as correct.

A coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 31.03.2014 rendered in WPMS No. 2202 of 2013 has decided a similar controversy, where it

has been held as follows:-

“Undisputedly, fair price shop, in question, is situated within the territory of Gram Sabha of village Veerpuri, Jaspur, District Udham

Singh Nagar. Undisputedly, the alleged complaint was never placed before the Administrative Committee of the village panchayat nor

thereafter placed before the General House for discussion nor General House of the Village Panchayat has taken any decision thereon

following procedure as per Clause 9 of the Government Order. Impugned order was passed by the District Supply Officer. Mr. A.K. Joshi,

learned Addl. C.S.C. submits that de novo exercise shall be undertaken in accordance with law and thereafter, appropriate order shall be

passed on the alleged complaint against the petitioner. In view of the above, impugned orders do not sustain in the eyes of law. Therefore,

both the impugned orders dated 16.10.2012 and 23.03.2013 are hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed.â€​

In the present case also, the procedure laid down in Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 15.10.2005 was not followed before cancelling the

fair price shop licence of the petitioner.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.02.2015 passed by District Supply Officer, Haridwar and order dated 04.08.2015

passed by Commissioner, Garhwal Division are quashed. However, this order will not preclude the Competent Authority from passing fresh order in

respect of petitioner, in accordance with law.