Dismissed

Prahlad v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024WRIC/1003898/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop license and the rejection of an appeal. The Court held that the petitioner received a due opportunity of hearing and submitted a reply which was considered. Allegations of irregularities were verified, and the claim of political influence was not canvassed before the authorities belo

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

Prahlad Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19646

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003898 of 2008

¶4

Petitioner :- Prahlad Respondent :- Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.M.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri P. Venktesh holding brief of Sri A. M. Tripathi for the petitioner as well as Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by Sub Divisional magistrate, Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich thereby cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner as well as order dated 23.4.2008 passed by Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda thereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation has also been rejected.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running a fair price shop in Village Narrottampur, Block Shivpur, Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich for the last several years. It has been submitted that certain complaints were made on 25.5.2006 against the petitioner for not running the fair price shop properly and committing irregularities in distributing kerosene oil as well as food-grains to the villagers. On receipt of the said complaint an inquiry by Assistant Development Officer(Panchayat) was ordered and the statements of the villagers were recorded. In the inquiry report it was stated that there were irregularities in distributing kerosene oil and food grains. It was further found that the kerosene oil was not being distributed on regular basis and there were gaps of one or more months in distribution of the said kerosene oil and the sugar was not distributed regularly and other irregularities with regard to distribution to below poverty line card holders had also emerged. When the stock of the license was sought to be verified the petitioner did not permit the said verification and he was not found present on the said shop. It is in aforesaid circumstance that fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended on 7th July, 2006 and by the same letter he was asked to respond to the allegations leveled against him.

¶9

The petitioner filed his reply on 17.7.2006. Naib Tehsildar also made an inquiry with regard to the response submitted by the petitioner on 10.10.2006 where he again stated that the

¶10

goods which were distributed by the petitioner could not be verified as the petitioner has remained absent on the dates when the said inspection was to be carried out. Even during the inquiry proceedings further complaints were made against the petitioner on 23.8.2006 and they were also inquired into and on inquiry the allegations were found to be correct. Even with regard to fresh allegations when the spot inspection was sought to be carried out on 15.9.2006 the petitioner was found to be absent. Subsequently also statement of the villagers were recorded who stated that the petitioner has not been supplying the essential commodities to the villagers on regular basis and there are several irregularities in distribution of kerosene oil. Number of persons appeared before the inquiry team and stated that till date they have not been given food grain by the petitioner and most of the food grains are distributed by him much after the due date. It is on account of the aforesaid facts especially the overwhelming complaints made against the petitioner and also that on inquiry the said complaints were found to be correct the license of the petitioner was cancelled by means of order dated 11.10.2006.

¶11

Against the order of cancellation the petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate authority also looked into the entire facts and found that due inquiry had been conducted by the authorities in relation to the complaints raised against the petitioner. Even the reply of the petitioner was subjected to verification by the Naib Tehsildar, Mahsi who conducted the inquiry where all the allegations were found to be correct but the petitioner did not cooperate in the said inquiry and accordingly the stock could not be verified. Even with regard to subsequent allegations stock verification was sough to be conducted on 15.6.2006 but again the petitioner was found to be absent and during the said inspection and a number of persons gathered around the inspecting team and was manhandled. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the appellate authority was of the view that at all stages of inquiry the petitioner has not cooperated and inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and considering that the allegation against the petitioner and the complaints were verified and order of cancellation was passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that due opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before passing the said order and accordingly the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be set aside. He has further submitted that action has been taken against the petitioner on account of political influence and on this score alone the proceedings deserve to be aside.

¶13

Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the inquiry as prescribed was conducted and there was sufficient material before the authorities inquiring the complaints as well as inquiry reports and the inquiry was conducted a during the said proceedings which demonstrate that there was sufficient irregularity committed by the petitioner while distributing the food grains and consequently supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the petitioner.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is found that the present matter pertains to 2006. On the basis of the complaint made against the petitioner an inquiry team was constituted to look into the said allegations, statements of the complainants were recorded and all the complainants stated that the petitioner has been distributing the food-grains irregularly and the kerosene oil, sugar and rice were not even distributed on regular basis. At number of times stock was sought to be verified by the committee and on that occasions the petitioner was found to be absent from his shop on these occasions due to which the said inspections could not be carried out. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.7.2006 and he had filed his reply to the same on 17.7.2006. The reply submitted by the petitioner was again inquired into and statement was sought to be verified. Even at this stage the stock of the petitioner was sought to be inspected but the same could not bend done as he was not available.

¶15

Considering that on these complaints statements of villagers were recorded and the stock was sought to be verified but at number of occasions the petitioner evaded inspection of his shop. Considering the fact that he has submitted his reply to the show cause notice and also considering that several inquiries were conducted before and during the inquiry proceedings where statement of the villagers were recorded which unequivocally pointed towards the irregularities committed by the petitioner. The aspect of the political influence does not find mention either in the order of cancellation or at the appellate stage. This aspect of the matter as never canvassed before the authorities below. The said issue is question of fact and accordingly cannot be considered for the first time in writ proceedings. Opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and he had submitted his reply which was duly considered before passing of the impugned order of cancellation of fair price shop license. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given due opportunity of hearing.

¶16

In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of cancellation as well as appellate order

¶17

necessitating interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 4.3.2024

¶20

RKM.

¶21

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

Prahlad v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division and2 Ors. Vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and Another

Atul Meharotra Vs District Judge Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Smt. Pushpa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Sectt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Veer Bahadur Dubey Vs District Judge Shravasti and Others

Indra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Food and Civil Supply and Others

M/S Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage Unit-I Asopur Vs District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Ambedkar Nagar