Allowed

Siya Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2024/837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed orders cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop agreement and dismissing his appeal. The court held that inspecting the shop at 10:00 p.m. was improper and the findings were vitiated.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.06.2018 and 23.12.2019 quashed; fair price shop agreement restored.

Siya Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41413

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 837 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Siya Ram

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies,Lko. And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Rathour,Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manjusha Kapil

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dheeraj Ojha, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

By means of the instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar- Lakhimpur Kheri cancelling the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner and confiscated the security amount deposited by him. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No. 03547 of 2018, dismissing the appeal under Rule 13(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Sale and Distribution) Rules, whereby the appeal filed against the cancellation order dated 30.06.2018 has been dismissed.

¶10

The cancellation order states that Naib Tehsildar Lakhimpur and Supply Inspector Sadar had inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner at 10:00 p.m. on 02.06.2018 and had found that the shop was closed. The petitioner was not present and a lady was present there, who told that there was nobody in the house and she stated that she did not have Stock Register and Quota Cards. The Stock Board, Rate Board, List of toll free numbers etc. were not displayed on the shop.

¶11

The cancellation order dated 30.06.2018 was preceded by the charge-sheet dated 06.06.2018 which also states that inspection of the petitioner's shop was carried out at 10:00 p.m. on 02.06.2018.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no occasion for inspection of the fair price shop of the petitioner at 10:00 p.m. as it is not the time when the shop is expected to be opened. The time of inspection mentioned in the charge-sheet and the cancellation order indicates that in fact no enquiry was conducted at the petitioner's shop and the alleged findings thereof are imaginary and concocted. The appeal filed

¶13

by the petitioner has been dismissed without adverting to this issue that the petitioner's fair price shop need not be functioning at 10:00 p.m.

¶14

As the inspection of petitioner's fair price shop was conducted at an odd hour of the night, at which time the shop was rightly closed and there was no illegality in the petitioner being away from his shop at that point of time, the petitioner cannot be penalized for his shop being closed at 10:00 p.m. Further, the aforesaid narration in the charge-sheet and the punishment order, prima facie, raise a doubt against the genuineness of the enquiry conducted on the petitioner's fair price shop.

¶15

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.06.2018 and 23.12.2019, which are based on an enquiry which has not been conducted properly, are vitiated and unsustainable in the law.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar-Lakhimpur Kheri and order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow are hereby quashed. The fair price shop agreement in favour of the petitioner is restored. All the necessary consequences shall follow.

¶17

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 kkv/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Siya Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siya Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,Lko. and 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

Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Naushad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and Another

Pankaj Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jubaida Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Anothers

M/S R.H. Enterprises Gonda Thru. Its Proprietor Shubham Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others