JUDGMENT
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Blhari, JJ.
1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 28/29.1.1992 passed by respondent No. 3, the District Supply Officer, Varanasi, as communicated to him. vide his office letter No. 527/DSO Shop 5/92 dated 29.1.1992 as contained in Annexure-4 suspending and cancelling with immediate effect the licence of his shop No. 193, Chowk Division on the ground that he has unauthorisedly transferred his shop by way of shikmi (sublet) to Vijay Kumar son of Mewa Lal, House No, C-9/115, Habibpura, Varanasi, after recording a finding that despite notice, he has failed to file his show cause and thus he had nothing to state in regard to the charge.
2. Mr. Dhananjay Rai. holding brief of Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended as follows :
The notice dated 8.1.1992 requiring to file show cause in regard to the alleged violation of Provision No. 23 of the U. P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 1990. had not mentioned any specific date within which the show cause was required to be filed by the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on 29.1.1992 even though the petitioner had apprised respondent No. 3 of his earlier order as contained in Annexure-2 permitting the petitioner to man the shop through Vijay Kumar
as his manager but this has not been referred to in the order impugned. Had the petitioner been given proper opportunity, he would have demonstrated that as per recitals in the notice, the petitioner had appointed the aforesaid Vijay Kumar as his salesman and thus, drawing of an inference by respondent No- 3 that he had sublet his shop was wholly misconceived.
3. Sri H. R. Mishra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, contended as follows :
(i) After the service of the notice on the petitioner, it was expected of him to file show cause within a reasonable time, say, within 15 days, which he never did and thus no wrong was committed by the authority In passing the Impugned order.
(ii) From the document appended as Annexure-2, it is clear that the permission was granted only temporarily to the petitioner on account of his illness to man his Fair Price Shop under the managership of Vijay Kumar and not permanently, and accordingly. the submissions of Mr. Rai are not sound and the Impugned order need not be set aside.
(iii) The authorities, after receipt of a complaint, had rightly drawn an inference that the shop had been sublet by the petitioner to Vijay Kumar aforementioned.
4. We find substance in the contention of Mr. Rai that no time-limit was fixed in the show cause notice dated 8.1.1992.
5. We further find that the statements made In paragraph 15 of the writ petition that the petitioner had brought to the knowledge of the District Supply Officer himself that he had granted permission to appoint Vijay Kumar as Vyawasthapak (Manager) and thus, he had inferred that he may submit his reply at his convenience, have not been denied by the respondents even though this writ petition was admitted on 28.2.1992
and operation of the impugned order was stayed giving an opportunity to the respondents to file counter-affidavit to the writ petition, but no counter-affidavit has been filed.
6. In the aforementioned backdrop, we are of the view that principles of natural justice were breached and the matter requires remittance for consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner before us in accordance with law.
7. In the result, we allow this writ petition in part, quash the Impugned order (as contained in Annexure-4) and remit back the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law by the District Supply Officer. Varanasi.
8. In order to expedite the matter since the petitioner is before us through his learned counsel, we direct him to file his written show cause within three weeks from today, which if filed, shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, or in the event of his failure to do so. It will be open for the District Supply Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as
to cost.
10. The office is directed to hand
over a copy of this order within one
week to Sri H. R. Mishra, learned
standing counsel for its Intimation to
and compliance of the directions
made as above.