Allowed

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023WRIC/294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop license and subsequent dismissal of an appeal. The court held that the cancellation order was arbitrary as it lacked evidentiary support, disregarded 69 cardholder affidavits, failed to cross-examine the sole complainant, and violated Article 14.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cancellation order and appellate dismissal order dated 04.08.2020 and 22.12.2020 are set aside; the fair price shop is restored to the petitioner.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 294 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sanjay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶4

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Deoria whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 22.12.2020 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

¶5

The contentions of the Counsel for the petitioner in brief are that the petitioner was a holder of fair price shop license. On account of some information received with regard to improper supply of food grains and on the basis of complaints received, an inspection was carried out over the shop in question. The petitioner was served with a suspension order-cum-show cause notice on 04.04.2020 alleging therein that at the time of inspection, a joint statement was given against the petitioner with regard to improper supply. In respect of the said allegations, an statement was given by one Smt. Ranju Devi that less food grains were distributed. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the order of termination may not be passed. The petitioner filed a reply denying the allegations levelled in the show cause notice. Along with the said reply, the petitioner submitted the statements of 69 cardholders along with their affidavits to demonstrate that none of them had any grievances against the petitioner.

¶6

After the reply was filed along with evidences by the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 04.08.2020 cancelling the fair price shop license. In the said order, after recording the averment made in the show cause notice, the petitioner's submissions and the statements of witnesses were recorded and without recording any reason for disbelieving the evidences adduced by the petitioner, the order of cancellation came to be passed merely on the ground that at the time of inspection, it was found that the petitioner was not distributing the food grains as prescribed, to which he was supposed to distribute. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner filed an appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed vide

¶7

order dated 22.12.2020 without considering any of the averment made by the petitioner in his defence merely holding that there is no irregularity in the order cancelling the fair price shop license.

¶8

The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the show cause notice, the only statement referred to was that of Smt. Ranju Devi with whom the petitioner has enmity, even the said Smt. Ranju Devi was never subjected to cross-examine. He further argues that as many as, 69 cardholders have given statements in favour of the petitioner and no reason has been assigned for disbelieving their version, in fact, their statements have not even been considered in the order impugned.

¶9

The Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the appellate order is bereft of any reasoning and merely states that no error was found in the order cancelling the fair price shop license. He further argues that procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 05.09.2019 has also not been followed while passing the order impugned.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, justifies the order by arguing that during COVID-19 situation irregularities were reported and thus, the license was rightly cancelled.

¶11

Considering the submissions made at the bar and from the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the reason for cancellation is not substantiated by any evidence whatsoever, even Smt. Ranju Devi has also not been subjected to cross-examination. No reason has been assigned, as to why, the evidences produced in defence of 69 cardholders was not found worthy of reliance by the licensing authority. Clearly the order passed is contrary to the mandate of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 and also does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

For the reasons recorded above, both the orders impugned dated 04.08.2020 and 22.12.2020 are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders impugned as referred above are set aside.

¶13

The writ petition is allowed .

¶14

The consequence of allowing the writ petition would include the restoration of the fair price shop to the petitioner.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.4.2023

¶16

akverma

¶17

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

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Mauli Educational Welfare Society and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradip Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

M/S Lari Almira House Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Lari Almira House Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radhey Shyam Patel Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others