Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52244 of 2009
Shiv Govind
Versus
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.
Present writ petition in question has been filed questioning the validity
of the order of cancellation of fair price shop agency and order of its
affirmance by Appellate Authority.
Brief background of the case is that a complaint has been received in
respect of illegal distribution of essential commodities and qua the said
complaint in question Naib Tehsildar was asked to make inquiry and he
made inquiry and submitted his report. Based on the said inquiry report
petitioner was asked to submit written submission alongwith documentary
evidence in the shape of stock register as well as sales register. Thereafter
petitioner submitted his reply on 16.06.2007 and after the said reply has
been submitted Licensing Authority considered the matter and found the
reply so submitted by petitioner to be unsatisfactory and as there was
deliberate concealment of material by withholding sales register and stock
register, proceeded to pass order of cancellation. Aggrieved against the
same appeal was preferred and said appeal in question has also been
dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.
Sri H.N. Singh, Advocate contended with vehemence that totally
vague and evasive report has been submitted by Naib Tehsildar and based
on the same impugned order in question has been passed, as such writ
petition deserves to be allowed.
Countering the said submission, learned Standing counsel on the
other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and
as such no interference should be made with the impugned order in
question.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position
which is emerging in the present case is that on the complaint being made
preliminary inquiry was got conducted through Naib Tehsildar and then
report in question had been submitted pointing out material irregularities
2
which were being committed in running fair price shop agency by the
petitioner based on the same charge sheet has been issued and petitioner
was asked to submit his reply supported by documentary evidence in the
shape of stock register as well as sales register. After said reply submitted,
Licensing Authority in its wisdom considered the reply submitted by
petitioner and found that deliberately and intentionally petitioner has
withhold the record in question and has not produced the sales register and
stock register on the pretence of theory that said document has been lost.
Once deliberately and intentionally stock register and sales register has
been withhold and Licensing Authority as well as Appellate Authority both
have satisfied that F.I.R. is only pretence to save himself from taking action
against him in this background once illegalities were apparent, sales register
as well as stock register were not at all produce and F.I.R. has been lodged
as pretence then in exercise of authority of judicial review there is hardly
any scope of interference.
Consequently present writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is
dismissed.
Dated 14th July, 2010
Dhruv