Dismissed

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023WRIC/924/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a fair price shop licensee, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, arguing illegality in rejecting his appeal despite supportive affidavits. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality as the cancellation was based on affirmed complaints of irregularities in food grain distribution by multiple card holder

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed as there was no illegality in the impugned order cancelling the license.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 924 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Shashank Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Heard Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Petitioner before this Court is a fair price shop licensee who is aggrieved that despite various affidavits submitted by card holders in his favour, his license was erroneously cancelled and illegality was committed while rejecting the appeal also.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the first round, matter was remanded back to the appellate authority with the following directions:

¶8

"अवर न्ययाययालय/उपजजिलयाजधिकयाररी घघोसरी, मऊ दयारया पयाररत ननिरस्तरीकरण आददेश नदनियक ा 05.08.2020 एतदयारया ननिरस्त करतदे हहए ्ቚकरण इस ननिदरश कदे सयाथ ्ቚनत्ቚदेनषित नकयया जियातया हहै नक अपरीलयाथቕኍ दयारया आददेश ककी ्ቚमयानणत्ቚ नत ्ቚस्त त ु करनिदे पर अपरीलयाथቕኍ खण्ड नवकयास अजधिकयाररी दयारया ्ቚदेनषित आख्यया नदनियक ा 01.07.2020 कदे सयाथ साሪल्ሿ 37 शपथ पतኘ᭖ ककी ्ቚनतयय उपलब्धि करयातदे हहयदे ्ቚनत पररी्ቌण कया अवसर ्ቚदयानि करतदे हहयदे ्ቚयाप स्पषरीकरण पर पतुनिनः ्ቚकरण मम गतुण-दघोषि कदे आधियार पर एक मयाह मम स्परीनकाሪग आड र पयाररत करम। इस मध्य नवतरण व्यवस्थया यथयावत रहदेगरी।"

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that despite above direction, authority not only conducted a fresh inquiry but recorded statements of other card holders which was not warranted and despite number of card holders affirmed their statements made on oath still the authority cancelled fair price shop license of petitioner only on basis that few card holders have denied their earlier affidavits as well as on basis of fresh complaint of other card holders, the appeal thereof was also wrongly rejected.

¶10

Above submissions are opposed by learned Standing Counsel who submits that during inquiry it was found that there were various irregularities committed by petitioner in distribution of food grains.

¶11

In order to consider rival submissions, I have carefully perused impugned order dated 23.7.2021 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate whereby in light of order of remand, affidavits of 32 card holders were taken on record who have supported case of petitioner that they have no complaint against him.

¶12

Inquiry was conducted wherein about 10-12 card holders have denied about knowledge of their earlier affidavits, though some of card holders affirmed that they have no complaint against petitioner as well as some new complaints were also made.

¶13

Petitioner being a licensee is under obligation to follow the conditions of license to distribute essential commodities to card holders regularly without any irregularity. However, it has been affirmed by number of card holders that petitioner has committed irregularity in distribution of food grains.

¶14

Only because some of card holders have supported petitioner that they have no complaint against him does not mean that complaint made against petitioner by other card holders which was later on affirmed also, were false. Even if a complaint of single card holder is found to be true it can be a ground for cancellation of license wheres in the present case there are number of card holders who have affirmed that they have complaint against petitioner. Petitioner has no material to refute allegations of card holders

¶15

In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶16

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.1.2023 SB

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

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

Sumit Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Om Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aman Kumar @ Aman Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Jasrath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zulekha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others