Dismissed

Jawahar Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023WRIC/210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a fair price shop licensee, approached the High Court against the cancellation of his licence and rejection of his appeal due to alleged irregularities in foodgrain distribution and failure to maintain records. The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on an unauthorised Lekhpal report.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Cairgement of licence cancellation order upholds.

Jawahar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 210 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Jawahar Lal

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Pratap Mishra,Sriram Dhar Dubey

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Sudhir Bharti,Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶8

Petitioner is a fair price shop licensee. Number of cardholders submitted complaint against petitioner about irregular distribution of foodgrains. Consequently, an inspection was conducted on 29.12.2021 wherein statement of number of cardholders were recorded. They made allegations about irregularity committed by petitioner in distribution of foodgrains that it was not provided in the last month; in the month of December no foodgrains were distributed till 29.12.2021; they were forced to put their thumb impression a week prior to date of actual distribution of foodgrains; and, at the time of inspection son of petitioner did not provide relevant register on demand.

¶9

An explanation was submitted by petitioner, however, the same was not found adequate, therefore, by impugned order dated 29.03.2022 fair price shop licence of petitioner was cancelled and appeal thereof was also rejected by order dated 07.12.2022.

¶10

Sri B.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no allegation against petitioner that foodgrains were not distributed and only allegation is of delay in distribution. Learned counsel refers to a report submitted by Lekhpal concerned on the basis of inspection made during the period when proceedings were pending before Licensing Authority, that, statement of number of cardholders were recorded who said that no irregularity was

¶11

committed by petitioner in distribution of foodgrains and that they got foodgrains of the month concerned. Learned counsel submits that this report was not placed before Licensing Authority, however, petitioner has placed the same before Appellate Authority but it was ignored.

¶12

While opposing above submissions learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents submits that petitioner has not submitted any explanation that why he has taken thumb impression of cardholders a week prior to the date of actual distribution of foodgrains and that at the time of inspection son of petitioner has not provided relevant register on demand. He also submits that inspection of Lekhpal was not conducted under orders of Licensing Authority.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

Allegations against petitioner with regard to irregular distribution of foodgrains and that cardholders were forced to put their thumb impression even a week prior to the date of actual distribution of foodgrains, are serious in nature and it amounts violation of conditions of licence. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner that since petitioner has distributed foodgrains, though by some delay, no prejudice was caused to cardholders and that a subsequent report of Lekhpal corroborates this fact, cannot be accepted for the reason that procedure does not permit petitioner to take thumb impression of cardholders even a day before actual distribution whereas in the present case allegation in this regard is that petitioner forced to cardholders to put their thumb impression one week prior to the date of actual distribution of foodgrains. Petitioner has not given any explanation to this allegation.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner placed heavy reliance on report of Lekhpal, however, there is nothing on record to show that under whose permission Lekhpal has conducted spot inspection, especially when matter was ceased with District Supply Officer. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on report of Lekhpal.

¶16

Petitioner being a licensee of fair price shop is under obligation to distribute requisite foodgrains regularly to cardholders. He is also under obligation to maintain relevant register in prescribed format and to take thumb impression of cardholders only at the time of distribution of foodgrains. He is further under obligation to provide register at the time of inspection by concerned officer. However, petitioner has failed to discharge any of the above obligations which is proved by statements recorded during inspection and they are valid reasons to cancel licence of petitioner.

¶17

In view of above, I find no illegality or irregularity in impugned order. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 AK

¶19

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

Jawahar Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Dulare Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Furqan Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Smt. Heerwati Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Tarkeshwar Singh Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Bhawishya Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another