Quashed

Devendra Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner Food Lucknow Division and Another

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023WRIC/1007100/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of fair price shop license and dismissal of appeal filed in 2012. Court found prima facie defects, specifically failure to examine deponents and shifting burden of proof. Order quashed with direction to pass fresh order if shop allotment is unclear.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition disposed of; orders of 06.06.2012 and 13.08.2012 quashed; licensing authority directed to pass fresh order if no clear allotment exists.

Devendra Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner Food Lucknow… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64717

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1007100 of 2012

¶4

Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Respondent :- The Deputy Commissioner Food Lucknow Division And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Prakash Mishra,Santosh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.06.2012 whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner was canceled as well as the appellate order dated 13.08.2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶8

The facts in brief are that on the basis of the inspection carried out on the shop of the petitioner, certain irregularities were found, as such, a suspension order cum show cause notice was issued on 16.05.2012 stating that on the date of the inspection, the shop in question was found to be closed, the display board was missing and

¶9

certain persons had given the statements with regard to improper distribution of food-grains. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner denied the allegations and stated that on the said date, the wife of the petitioner was unwell and he had gone out of station, coupled with the fact that on the date of inspection no distribution was to be carried out. The petitioner also denied that there was any improper distribution of food-grains, he also submitted the distribution register in support of the said contention. After submission of the defence, the petitioner also submitted two afÏdavits signed by the card-holders supporting the averment made by the petitioner in his defence and certifying that there were no irregularities in the distribution of food-grains. On the basis of the documents, an order came to be passed canceling the fair price shop license of the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2012, rejecting the defence taken by the petitioner and holding that the shop could not be left closed even if the day was not fixed for distribution, the defence of the petitioner that his wife was unwell and he had gone out of station, was not considered by the

¶10

adjudicating authority. As regards the afÏdavits submitted by the petitioner, the same were disbelieved mainly on the ground that they were signed jointly by various persons. The said order also records that the some of the persons, who were deponents had come to the OfÏce, however, an opinion was formed that they must have given the afÏdavit out of greed or fear and thus, the same were disbelieved. It was also recorded that the petitioner ought to have submitted the copies of the distribution register, which has not been done. On the findings recorded above, the order came to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of an appeal, which too was dismissed mainly on the ground that a proper opportunity was granted by the licensing authority, which required no interference.

¶11

On perusal of the said two orders, the same, prima facie cannot be justified as there was no reason for the licensing authority to disbelieve the afÏdavits given in support of the petitioner and in the event, there was occasion to disbelieve them, licensing authority was well within his rights to have

¶12

examined the deponents, which has not been done. Even otherwise, the burden of proof has been shifted on the petitioner which is contrary to the settled position that the burden of proving the allegations lies on the person, who is making allegations. On the face of it, the orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed, however, as the orders were passed in the year 2012, and the allotment must have been made, it is provided that in the event that no clear allotment of the shop in question has been made, the licensing authority shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 Arun

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devendra Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner Food Lucknow Division and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar v. the Deputy Commissioner Food Lucknow Division and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khalil Vs Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 7 and Others

Waqf Guru Granth Ji Sahib Sangat Hasnapur Wa Sarvarakari Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.8 Sitapur and Another

Ajai Kumar Shukla Objection Filed Vs Union of India Thru Secy. External Affairs and Others

Vivek Singh @ Vivek Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 7 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs District Judge Barabanki Distt. Barabanki and Others

Ram Darshan Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Supply Lko and 7 Others