This writ petition by a fair price shop licensee was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner failed to explain stock shortages found during inspection or attack the legality of the impugned orders by the Licensing and Appellate Authorities.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1561 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gangadeen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Achal Singh,Kamta Prasad
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Petitioner is a fair price shop licensee who is running his shop for more than two decades.
Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was not a single complaint against petitioner for last two decades, however, only on ground that he fought election against present pradhan and lost, with malafide intention, false complaint was filed regarding irregularities in distribution of foodgrains.
Learned counsel further submits that number of cardholders have submitted their written statement that they have no complaint against petitioner as well as some of cardholders have disputed that any complaint was filed on their instances. He further submits that alleged irregularity was explained in reply filed by the petitioner, however, same was not considered.
Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has opposed above submissions and submitted that since two authorities have taken a view that petitioner has committed irregularities, therefore, same may not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record.
According to impugned order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur, various allegations were made against petitioner regarding irregularities in distributing foodgrains and
that without distribution, cardholders were forced to put their thumb impression. During inspection, various irregularities were found and during physical verification, on basis of stock register, foodgrains were found less. Appeal thereof was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for petitioner has referred statements purportedly of cardholders that they have no complaint, however, admittedly, statement of cardholders were not annexed along with explanation which has not been denied by learned counsel for petitioner. Complaints were found to be true during inspection as well as explanation about shortcomings of foodgrains were also found unsatisfactory. Even during arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in impugned order.
Petitioner has failed to explain shortcomings of stock during inspection which is more than enough to hold that petitioner has committed irregularities and violated conditions of license which has been found true by Licensing Authority as well as were upheld by Appellate Authority.
The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in impugned order, therefore, writ petition has no force, hence, dismissed .
Order Date :- 2.2.2023 Nirmal Sinha
Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order finding the petitioner guilty of irregularities in distribution of foodgrains suffers from any legal infirmity.
Gangadeen
State Of U.P.
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
