1
Court No. 11
Writ Petition No. 1835 (M/S) of 2007
Rama Kant Sharma Petitioner
Vs.
Commissioner, Faizabad and others Opposite parties
----------------
Hon’ble Anil Kumar,J
Heard Sri Ravi Singh Sisodiya learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Rakesh Srivastava , learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.
By means of present writ petition , the petitioner has challenged
the orders dated 7.3.2007 and 29.5.2006 passed by opposite parties no. 1
and 2 respectively.
The facts, in brief, as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are that initially way of an agreement , license of fair price
shop was granted in favour of the petitioner for running a fair price shop
in village Bhatpurwa H/o Niskapur Vikas Khand Banikodar, district
Barabanki. In respect of the operation of the petitioner of the fair price
shot of the petitioner, a complaint had been submitted by some persons
and on the basis of the same , an enquiry was conducted by the Supply
Inspector, who submitted his report on 5.5.2006.
Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
9.5.2006, asking him to submit his reply. In response to which , the
petitioner had submitted his reply on 17.5.2006, denying the allegations
as made in the show cause notice.
By means of order dated 29.5.2006( Annexure-2 ) , the respondent
no.2 had cancelled the agreement of the petitioner for running the fair
price shop against which the petitioner had filed an appeal before
opposite party no.1 which was also dismissed by order dated 7.3.2007
( Annexure-1 ) . Aggrieved by the said orders, present writ petition has
been filed before this Court.
While challenging the impugned orders , learned counsel for the
2
petitioner submits that the explanation which was submitted by the
petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2006 was not
considered by the opposite party no.2 . Further, while passing the order
dated 29.5.2006 the opposite party no.2 had taken into consideration the
report dated 25.5.2006 submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, the copy of the
said report was neither given to the petitioner nor any opportunity as
such the said action is against the fair place and natural justice . The said
plea was categorically brought to the notice of the parties concerned i.e.
opposite parties no. 1 and 2 even though the impugned orders had been
passed against the petitioner as such the same an arbitrary in nature and
liable to be quashed.
Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents in rebuttal has submitted that after complaint made against
the petitioner , an inquiry has been conducted and on the basis of the
inquiry, report submitted by the Supply Inspector on 5.5.2006 the
petitioner was asked to submit his reply and after considering the reply ,
the order dated 29.5.2006 has been passed. He further submits that as a
matter of fact the report which had been submitted by the Naib
Tehsildar dated 25.5.2006 was nothing but in fact deto, the report already
submitted by the Supply Inspector dated 5.5.2006 as such there is neither
any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the authorities concerned
in the present writ petition, so the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
Admittedly, in the present case , initially a complaint has been
made against the petitioner in respect to the operation/ running a fair
price shop by him and thereafter an enquiry was initiated and on the
basis of the said enquiry , report was submitted by the Supply Inspector,
accordingly a show cause notice dated 19.5.2006 was issued to the
petitioner and after considering his reply an order dated 29.5.2006 has
been passed by the opposite party no.2 thereby cancelling the agreement
of the petitioner for running the fair price shop.
From the perusal of the order dated 29.5.2006 passed by opposite
3
party no.2 , it is Cristal clear that while passing the same, opposite party
no.2 had taken into consideration the report submitted by the Naib
Tehsildar dated 25.5.2006. In the instant case , the said fact is not
disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Standing Counsel that the said report had not been supplied to the
petitioner nor any opportunity had been given to him to submit his reply
in response to the same as such the said action on the part of the opposite
party no.2 placing reliance on the said report and taking action against
the petitioner on the basis of the same is clearly violation of principle of
natural justice as held by this regard this Court in the cases of Maiku Lal
Vs. State of U.P. and others 2009 (27) LCD 1192, Rajpal Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2008 (16) LCD 891, Dori Lal Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2006 (24) LCD 1121 and M/s Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta
Samitis Vs.State of U.P. and others 2001 (19) LCD 513.
Moreover, in the present case while passing the impugned order
dted 29.5.2006 opposite party no.2 had also not given any reasons
whatsoever and under what circumstances the reply submitted by the
petitioner had been rejected. It is well settled proposition of law while
passing the order the authority concerned should give a reason under
what circumstances the explanation submitted by a person against whom
the order has been passed has considered and rejected which is one of
the fundamental requirement under law.
In view of the above said fact, the order dated 29.5.2006 passed by
opposite party no.2 and the oder dated 7.3.2007 passed by opposite party
no.1 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the
opposite party no.2 to consider and decide the same within a period of
four months from today. after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
learned counsel for the parties.
It is further clarified that while deciding the dispute , the opposite
party no.2 shall also supply all the necessary material documents to the
petitioner and after providing the same shall hear and passed a reasoned
and speaking orders in accordance with law.
For a period of four months or till the decision taken by the
licensing authority in the matter whichever is earlier the license of the
4
shop in question shall remain suspended.
With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.
2.2.2010
D.K.