Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54591 of 2007 Petitioner :- Balram Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. Throu Secretary & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Atul Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner claims to be a fair price shop dealer in Gram Panchayat
Farendiya, district Basti and is aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2007 passed
by the Respondent No.4, whereby his fair price shop has been cancelled as also
the Appellate order dated 28.09.2007 passed by Respondent No.2, the
Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders
are liable to be set aside because on inspection the stock which was found lying
at his residence was half stock and the other half was lying in his fair price shop
which is situated in another house belonging to him. The explanation given by
the petitioner is that the road leading to the shop was broken therefore he had
stocked the foodgrains at his other house.
The aforesaid explanation of the petitioner has not been accepted by both
the authorities by holding that when the stocks are required to be stored and
distributed from the fair price shop and on inspection they were found not
stored in the fair price shop but in the house of his brother Shiv Prakash which
is at a distance from the fair price shop it was clear that he was indulging in
illegal activities with respect to supply of essential commodities. The finding
recorded by the Respondent No.4 is quoted hereunder which is self explanatory.
“fodzsrk us fnukad 03-04-2007 dks Li”Vhdj.k izLrqr fd;kA fodzsrk
us vius Li”Vhdj.k esa nqdku dh pkSgnnh okys jkLrs ds [kjkc gksus ds
dkj.k vk/kk lkeku lMd fLFkr edku ij vk/kk lkeku mrkjus ,oa ‘ks”k
pkSgnnh ij mrkjus rFkk tkap fnol dks [kyhyhckn tkuk crkrs gq;s
jaft’ko’k Qlk;s tkuk dgk gSA fodzsrk }kjk izLrqr Li”Vhdj.k
lUrks”ktud ugh gS D;ksfd dkykcktkjh esa ljdkjh pkoy NksVh cksfj;kW esa
ljdkjh flykbZZ [kjhnus okys f’koizdk’k xqIrk us pkoy cyjke pkS/kjh dk
gksuk crk;k FkkA fodzsrk tkucw>dj tkap ds le; edku ls gV x;k vkSj
pkSgnnh ls gVdj vkVk pDdh okys edku esa dqN [kk/kkUu j[kdj
2vuqcU/k i= dh ‘krksZ dk Li”V mYya/ku fd;k x;k gSA fodzsrk us
lk{; esa u rks viuk Lvkd jftLVj izLrqr fd;k u gh dksbZ vfHkys[k
izLrqr fd;k gSA bl izdkj fodzsrk }kjk izLrqr mRrj lUrks”ktud
ugh ik;k x;kA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk eq0 v0 la0&723@06 dh tkap
esa cfyjke pkS/kjh mDr fodzsrk ij /kkjk &3@7 bZ0lh0,DV dk vkjksi
lkfcr Hkh fd;k x;k gSA””
The Appellate Authority considered the aforesaid reasons given by
the petitioner and has disbelieved the same and has affirmed the order
passed by the Respondent No.4. The Appellate Authority has given reasons
for passing such order which is quoted hereunder:-
eSuas mHk; i{kksa ds vf/koDrk ds rdZ dks lquk ,oa i=koyh ij
miyC/k lk{;ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA foi{khx.kksa }kjk [kk/kkUu viuk u
crkrs gq;s uksfVl okil fy;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS tcfd
jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh dk rdZ gS fd
cjken mDr [kk/kkUu ljdkjh forj.k iz.kkyh ds vUrxZr ljdkjh
;kstuk dk [kk/kkUu gS] tks NksVs cksfj;ksa ls cMs cksjksa esa iyVh djrs gq;s
idMk x;k gSA iwfrZ fujh{kd d`”.k xksiky ik.Ms; }kjk tkap esa ;g
ik;k x;k fd mDr pkoy lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds vUrxZr vk;k
ljdkjh pkoy 16 ,l-ch-Vh- cksfj;k out yxHkx 8-00 dqUry ftl
ij yky jax ds /kkxs dh flykbZ rFkk dksM u0 03&15&ch&04 c”kZ
2005&06 dkeu pkoy&, dk QySi yxk Fkk feyk] blds vfrfjDr
21 cMs cksjks esa Hkjs pkoy ,d cMs cksjs esa vk/kk cksjh pkoy o ,d
vU; NksVh cksjh esa Hkjk pkoy rFkk 36 NksVh [kkyh cksfj;ka cjken gqbZ
gSA ftlls ;g Li”V gks tkrk gS fd ljdkjh ;kstuk dk [kk/kkUu
dkyk cktkjh gsrq fodz; ,oa dz; fd;k x;k tks NksVh cksfj;ksa ls cMs
cksjksa esa iYVh djrs gq;s idMk x;k] ftls jke pUnj iq= jke y[ku
xqIrk lkfdu fxBuh Fkkuk egqyh ds edku ds ,d dejs esa j[k dj
rkyk yxk dj lqiqnZxh esa lqjf{kr j[kus gsrq fn;k x;k vkSj foi{kh u0
1 o 2 ds fo:) eq0v0la0 723@06 ?kkjk 3@7 dk vfHk;kstu
iathd`r gqvkA pwfd mDr cjken pkoy ljdkjh ,l-ch-Vh- cksfj;ksa esa
ik;k x;k gS rFkk ,l-ch-Vh- cksfj;ksa ls cMs cksjks esa iYVh djrs gq;s
idMk x;k gS] ftlls ;g Li”V gS fd cjken mDr pkoy ljdkjh gS
3ijUrq foi{kh u0 1 o 2 nksuksa us mDr pkoy viuk crkus ls budkj
fd;k gS vkSj fdlh vU; }kjk Hkh pkoy dks viuk gksus dk nkok
izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS blfy;s cjken mDr pkoy jkT; ljdkj ds
i{k esa tCr fd;k tk;A
eS mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdZ dks lquus ,oa i=koyh
ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds vuq’khyu ds mijkUr bl er dk gwW fd mDr
cjken pkoy 29-50 dqUry lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh dk ljdkjh
pkoy gS] ftls jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa tCr fd;k tkuk fof/k lEer gS
D;ksfd foi{kh ;k vU; dksbZ mDr [kk/kkUu pkoy dks viuk gksus dk
nkok izLrqr ugh fd;k gSA blfy;s ntZ 3@7 vko’;d oLrq vf/kfu;e
ds vfHk;ksx ij fcuk dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko Mkys cjken 29-50 dqUry
pkoy ftls jke pUnj iq= jke y[ku xqIrk lkfdu fxBuh Fkkuk egqyh
ds lqiqnZxh esa fn;k x;k gS jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa tCr fd;s tkus
;ksX; gSA
The averment made in the writ petition are also quite similar to the
case taken by the petitioner before both the authorities. In writ jurisdiction
this Court cannot decide such disputed questions of fact as have been raised
by the petitioner against the finding of fact recorded by the authorities, as
such in absence of any evidence to show that the findings of fact are
perverse, no interference is required in the impugned order.
For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition has no merits and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2010
pks