Dismissed

Smt. Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2023WRIC/1239/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop license. The court held that the licensee violated license conditions by failing to accurately maintain distribution registers, as evidenced by discrepancies where 694 cardholders were served but only 29 signatures were recorded. The court explained that such inquiries require only summary hearings and princ

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought by petitioner for setting aside the cancellation of the license were not granted.

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1239 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sarita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra,Ajay Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri Yadunandan Yadav, Advocate for Caveator.

¶6

Petitioner is a fair price shop licensee. On the basis of a complaint made on public grievance postal, an inquiry was conducted by Supply Inspector and statements of as many as 30 cardholders were recorded, who have stated that petitioner has taken their thumb impression on E-POS Machine even before the month of August, 2021, however, no foodgrains were supplied. A show cause notice/ brief details of irregularities were forwarded to petitioner seeking her reply.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a detailed reply was submitted that foodgrains for first term of month of August, 2021 were duly distributed to cardholders which could be verified from distribution register. However Licensing Authority has not appreciated evidence brought on record by petitioner in its correct perspective and in a very mechanical manner rejected explanation of petitioner and cancelled fair price shop licence and appeal thereof was also erroneously rejected.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents submits that an opportunity was granted to petitioner to submit her reply to irregularities alleged in statements of various cardholders. Photocopy of distribution register was found defective since for second term of month of August, 2021 it was shown that foodgrains were distributed to as many as 694 cardholders, however, only 29 cardholders have put their signatures and, therefore, it was rightly concluded that petitioner has misused the E-POS Machine.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on

¶10

record.

¶11

Supply Inspector has conducted inspection of fair price shop of petitioner and recorded statements of cardholders, who stated that despite thumb impression was taken through E-POS Machine, still foodgrains were not supplied to them. Principles of natural justice were substantially complied and opportunity was granted to petitioner to submit her explanation to alleged irregularities. Petitioner submitted explanation that she has not committed any irregularities and placed photocopy of distribution register in support of explanation. However, Licensing Authority found that distribution register was not duly filled. Though it was shown that foodgrains were distributed to as many as 694 cardholders, however, it was signed by only 29 cardholders. Petitioner was miserably failed to explain said discrepancies which clearly indicates that conditions of licence were violated.

¶12

A submission has been made by learned counsel for petitioner that after introduction of E-POS system petitioner was not bound to maintain registers. However, in support of submission learned counsel is not able to show any Government circular or any other document, whereas provision of Clause 8(iv) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 clearly provides that a fair price shop licensee has to maintain stock and distribution registers which have to be presented as and when required by concerned authority.

¶13

Lastly, learned counsel for petitioner submits that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to petitioner and as such principles of natural justice were violated. 9. However, above submission has no legal basis as it has again clarified by Division Bench of this Court in Shankar Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others ( Misc . Single No . - 32679 of 2019 ), decided on 08.12.2021 that inquiry as contemplated by Full Bench in Puran Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 UPLBED 947 was in a limited sense. The Division Bench has held as under:

¶14

" 47. Thus, we answer the reference as under:-

¶15

(i) It is held that the parameters for an enquiry to be conducted against the licensee for the irregularities committed by the licensee in terms of

¶16

the Distribution of Essential Commodities is on broad principles of natural justice where the competent authority shall provide a show cause notice to the licensee indicating the violations and irregularities committed by the licensee with sufficient particularity to enable him to respond to the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the decision can be taken by the competent authority by a reasoned and a speaking order. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry;

¶17

(ii) It is held that the words "full fledged enquiry" as used by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision of Puran Singh (supra) has to be read in context with paras 4 and 5 of the Government Order of July 2004 and the scheme therein which merely requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and does not provide for a detailed enquiry involving various stages and steps as are required to be met in disciplinary enquiry against a government servant."

¶18

The outcome of above discussion is that petitioner has violated conditions of fair price shop licence and since she was failed to explain irregularities, her licence was cancelled. Learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in impugned orders, therefore, reliefs sought by petitioner cannot be granted.

¶19

Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.2.2023 AK

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarita Devi 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

Pradeep Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. Pyare Lal Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Ramji Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Satab Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others