Dismissed

Babbu Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021WRIC/4999/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the suspension of his fair price shop license for alleged black marketing, the petitioner contended non-compliance with procedural safeguards. The court held that the governing Government Order dated 5 August 2019 did not mandate a hearing prior to suspension, distinguishing earlier precedents based on the superseded 2004 Order, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no cost awarded to the petitioner.

Babbu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4999 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Babbu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Petitioner, a fair price shop licensee, by the instant writ petition is assailing the order dated 11.12.2020, passed by the fourth respondent-District Supply Inspector, District Aligarh, suspending the license on allegation of serious and gross irregularity noted in the impugned order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three fold submissions: that order of suspension is in teeth of Government Order dated 29 July 2004; that opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order was not afforded; that without examining the complainant to verify the genuineness of the complaint, the license could not have been suspended.

¶8

Learned standing counsel submits that the writ petition is premature against an order of suspension, the Government Order dated 29 July 2004, would not apply. The said order has been superseded by subsequent Government Order dated 5 August 2019, which does not require any hearing at the stage of passing of the suspension order; petitioner in first instance must approach the competent authority and show cause by filing his objection/evidence.

¶9

I have perused the impugned order with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

It is noted therein that on 8.12.2020, complaints were received by the Regional Food Officer. On the said complaint, Supply Inspector and Supply Clerk were directed to enquire into the matter. On enquiry, it was found that

¶11

the petitioner was indulging in black marketing of 51.86 quintal wheat and 29.34 quintal rice. Further, on contacting card holders, officers were informed that the petitioner used to take thumb impression of the card holders on the e-pass machine but did not distribute the grains. Having regard to the serious allegation, approval was sought from the District Magistrate, thereafter, an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 0750/2020 dated 9.12.2020, was lodged against the petitioner. Pursuant thereof, order of suspension was passed. On perusal of the Government Order dated 5 August 2019, procedure for suspending the license provides that the officer of the department on inspection or otherwise, if it is found that the licensee is indulging in irregularity in distribution of food grains, public essential items or indulging in black marketing, the concerned officer after obtaining approval from the District Magistrate, can pass the order of suspension pending enquiry.

¶12

It is urged that paragraph 2(b) of the Government Order dated 5 August 2019, has not been followed. The paragraph, inter alia , provides that on complaint being received from the card holders, preliminary enquiry is to be conducted and on the basis thereof, necessary action can be taken against the licensee. It is noted in the impugned order that on receiving complaints against the petitioner, the Regional Food Officer deputed the officers to make inspection on the spot. On inspection it was found that petitioner was indulging in black marketing of food grains and not distributing the food grain to the card holders despite obtaining thumb impression of the card holders. The allegation, prima facie , is serious.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Harpal vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008(3)ADJ36, and Samar Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, (Writ-C No. 49895 of 2013) decided on 8.13.2014, to urge that opportunity should have been given to the petitioner before passing the

¶14

impugned order.

¶15

I have perused the decisions carefully, the decisions are of no help to the petitioner for the reason that aforementioned decisions are based on the Government Order dated 29 July 2004, which no longer governs the field of proposed action against the licensee on allegation of black marketing or unfair distribution of food grains to the card holders.

¶16

Learned standing counsel, in rebuttal, has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010(3)ADJ659(FB), wherein, the Court was of the opinion that the Government Order dated 29 July 2004, does not contemplate of any notice and or opportunity before suspending the fair price shop, rather, there is a clear stipulation that the authority can pass the order of suspension at the time of surprise inspection. In view of the Full Bench decision, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no longer a good law.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.

¶18

The writ petition being devoid of merit, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

No cost.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Mukesh Kr.

Babbu Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babbu Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azad @ Azad Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Kanti Devi and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Hardevi and 2 Others Vs Commissioner and 9 Others

Anwar Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yunis Khan Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Pragati Swayam Sahayata Samuh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others