Allowed

Raja Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2022WRIC/24175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court challenged the confirmation of an order cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop license. The court noted procedural lapses, including failure to conduct a full enquiry after rebuttal of allegations and a perverse finding regarding evidence. No new enquiry was ordered; the license was restored.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 5.6.2017 and 2.3.2019 set aside; Fair Price Shop Agreement restored within one month.

Raja Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24175 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Raja Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pratap Singh,Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Vishal Tandon

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 2.3.2019 passed by the appeal authority whereby it has confirmed the order dated 5.6.2017 passed by the licensing authority to cancel the petitioner's fair price shop agreement for Gram Panchayat Juda Chhapara, Block and Tehsil Khadda, District Kushi Nagar.

¶9

Chiefly, it has been submitted that there were no complaints against the petitioner. Only motivated complaint was made by the then Gram Pradhan who was not on good terms with the petitioner. At her instigation, suspension order dated 30.11.2016 was passed on the allegation of excess stock of wheat, 5 kilograms and excess stock of rice, 35 kilograms. The said allegation is stated to be wholly malafide and set up on false facts. Prior to the suspension order, an allegation was levelled of the petitioner having removed 11 bags full of wheat and having placed them inside the house of one Ram Chandra Gupta (with whom the petitioner was in litigation). However, that allegation was found to be wholly bogus upon the inspection conducted on 15.11.2016. It is at that stage that the allegation of excess stock of 5 kilograms of wheat and 35 kilograms of rice emerged. In any case the petitioner submitted his reply and denied the

¶10

¶11

allegation levelled in the suspension order. Vide its reply dated 15.12.2016 he had offered complete reconciliation of the stock position. It may be noted, at that stage there were no allegation of short supply made by the petitioner to any individual, beneficiary/card holder. In fact, there was no complaint made by any beneficiary/card holder, upto that stage.

¶12

Instead of accepting the explanation a further show cause notice dated 8.5.2017 was issued, relying on alleged ex parte statements of certain beneficiaries/card holders. Thus, for the first time (since the suspension order was passed), with a delay of five months, allegations of short supply were made. The petitioner responded to the same vide reply dated 22.5.2017 annexing thereto affidavits of various beneficiaries/card holders, to dispute the allegation of short supply. It is upon that reply being furnished, the order dated 5.6.2017 came to be passed canceling petitioner's fair price shop license. It has been confirmed in appeal.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it stands out that in the first place the allegation made was of 11 bags full of wheat having been surreptitiously removed by the petitioner. That allegation made on the strength of the oral statement of one Ram Chandra Gupta was not carried forward to any extent. It was so because on the physical verification of the petitioner's stock carried out on 15.11.2016, the stock found was almost wholly reconciled. The alleged excess 5 kilograms of wheat appears negligible and its correctness has been doubted by the petitioner in the context of 84.90 kilograms of wheat having been allotted to him at the relevant time. But for 5 kilograms, that enormous quantity was fully reconciled. Similarly, against allotment of 59.25 kilograms of rice only 35 kilograms of rice was found not reconciled. Instead of proceeding further, on such facts found and without instituting any full fledged enquiry in that regard the licensing authority appears to have dropped that charge completely. It is so, because the final order to cancel the petitioner's fair price shop agreement has not been based on that allegation.

¶14

¶15

Despite the fact that the original show cause notice was practicaly dropped by the licensing authority, he did not restore the petitioner's fair price shop agreement. During the continuance of the suspension order, a fresh ex parte enquiry was conducted on 3.5.2017. That gave rise to the second notice dated 8.5.2017. Despite strong rebuttal made by the petitioner to each and every fact allegation made in the notice dated 8.5.2017 and despite facts having being denied by the petitioner in the shape of affidavits of beneficiaries/card holders and report of the neutral observer evidencing fair distribution of essential commodities, the licensing authority chose to pass the impugned order dated 5.6.2017.

¶16

The aforesaid order is wholly laconic and contrary to the established proceedure. Once the petitioner had disputed the correctness of the fact allegation made in the second show cause notice dated 8.5.2017, it was obligatory on the license authority to have carried out full fledged enquiry as laid down by the Full Bench in Pooran Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (3) ADJ 659 and as applied in Smt. Santara Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2016 (2) ADJ 70.

¶17

The aforesaid procedural lacunae is fatal to the impugned order. Once the charges had been leveled on the strength of ex parte statements of certain beneficiaries/card holders and those had been rebutted by the petitioner by adducing evidence in the shape of affidavits of some of those beneficiaries/card holders, adverse inferences may have been recorded by the license authority only after conducting a full fledged enquiry. In that, statements of the beneficiaries would have to be recorded in the presence of the petitioner as may have allowed the petitioner opportunity to cross examine those witnesses. Nothing of the kind had been done.

¶18

Even if that procedural lapse is left alone for some time, the finding recorded by the licensing authority that the petitioner did not lead any evidence is shockingly perverse. Besides rebuttal made in reply dated 22.5.2017, the impugned order itself records that the petitioner had placed on record the report of the neutral observer for the months of August-

¶19

¶20

September 2016. Further, it records that the petitioner had brought on record the affidavits of Bholu son of Motin, Kalamuddin son of Abdul, Panmati Devi wife of Rajendra, Vishwanath son of Ramprasad, Ramkishun son of Vindhhyachal, Nasruddin son of Nabbi, Yaseen son of Subhan, Gauri son of Vriksha, Ranga son of Vriksha, Rambelas son of Vrijhan, Ramlal son of Chokat, Lalbachan son of Munni, Paras son of Moti, Singhasan son of Virjhan, Motilal son of Pujeru, Dwarika son of Ramlal, Kunti Devi wife of Lalbachan, Kailashi Devi wife of Chandrika, Suggi Devi wife of Ramjeet, Gajji son of Nabbi, Yashodhra Devi wife of Prahlad, Kutumrtara wife of Quasim, Soni wife of Hasim, Shanti Devi wife of Suresh, Husnara wife of Rafiq, Prabhavati Devi wife of Kashi, Sharmila Devi wife of Gorakh, Singaari Devi wife of Natthu, Binda Devi wife of Raj Kumar, Angeera Devi wife of Raju Yadav, Sati Devi wife of Shyam Shankar and Vipatti Devi wife of Lakhraj.

¶21

Immediately, after making that recital, the licensing authority has proceeded to observe that the petitioner did not lead any evidence. Besides the fact that the finding recorded by the licensing authority is clearly perverse, it is prima facie doubted if the two parts of the order have been written by the same author. Sadly, the above blunderous mistake has not be corrected by the appeal authority.

¶22

Authorities vested with quasi judicial power are expected to act on reason in a manner as may not only give rise to fair result but in a manner as may reflect neutrality of those authorities.

¶23

Without reaching any further conclusion it has to be observed that the orders have not been passed in the manner enjoined by law. Existence of complaints is bound to arise in a society as large as ours, ridden with vast disparities. However, when it comes to passing orders that would affect civil rights, a careful scrutiny of facts must be made in the manner provided for by the law.

¶24

Here there is no doubt, the first allegation made against the petitioner

¶25

¶26

with respect to 11 bags of wheat was found to be false. At the same time, at the same stage allegation of excess stock of 5 kilograms of wheat and 35 kilograms of rise had emerged. If the licensing authority was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, it ought to have conducted full fledged enquiry at that stage. Neither a full fledged enquiry was conducted nor the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner restored. That is the first error committed by the licensing authority. Even if the second notice could be contemplated, in such facts the further error committed by the licensing authority is more blatant. Having taken on record the written reply of the petitioner containing reports of the neutral observer and affidavits of certain beneficiaries, both refuting the allegation of short supply, no other option remained with the license authority but to institute a full fledged enquiry.

¶27

At this stage, not only the licensing authority failed to institute a full fledged enquiry but it proceeded to record finding that are found to be wholly perverse, as discussed above. Practically, the order passed by the licensing authority is an order passed with closed eyes and it is truly sad that the appeal authority has also failed to take note of that error committed and has confirmed the order passed by the licensing authority on vague observations.

¶28

In normal course the Court would set aside the order and remit the matter to the appeal authority and for the licensing authority. However, in view of the facts of the present case, as have been noted above and also in view of the long passage of time of almost eight years, no useful purpose would be served allowing for a proper enquiry at this stage which would amount to a fresh enquiry. Whatever mistakes, if any, may have been committed by the petitioner, have resulted in heavier punishment than that may have been ever deserved by the petitioner. His license has remained suspended for a period of almost six years.

¶29

Accordingly, the orders dated 5.6.2017 and 2.3.2019 passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively, are set aside. The writ petition is

¶30

¶31

allowed. No order as to costs.

¶32

Let the fair price shop agreement be restored within a period of one month.

¶33

Order Date :- 4.5.2022 Deepika

¶34

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.05.06 13:35:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raja Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Dilip Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Khurshid Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Gaffar Hussain Vs State of U P and Another

Nagar Panchayat Fatehganj West and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Juhi End Udyog Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Brij Bihari Singh, through Its Proprietor Shri Bihari Singh Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax Lucknow and Another