Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. Dy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Gonda and Anr.

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024WRIC/10875/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a Fair Price Shop agreement. The Court deferred to the SDM inquiry (not Supply Officer), found ample opportunity for hearing, and held no merit in the challenge.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raj Kumar Vs Dy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Gonda… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69465

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10875 of 2016

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- Dy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Gonda And Anr

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijayendra Prakash Tripat,Rajeev Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Govind Kumar Chourasia

¶8

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶9

Heard Shri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for the State.

¶10

By means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the SDM, Nanpara, Bahraich cancelling fair price shop agreement of the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 27.02.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Appeal No. 124, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 10.04.2015 has been affirmed.

¶11

It has been stated in the impugned order dated 10.04.2015 passed by the SDM, Nanpara, Bahraich that upon complaints made by certain villagers against irregularities committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities, the petitioner's fair price shop agreement was suspended by the impugned order dated 27.02.2016 and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation along with distribution documents for the past three months, but the petitioner submitted an unsigned and undated explanation through Registered Post on 02.03.2015. On 27.03.2015, another notice

¶12

was issued to the petitioner giving him a further opportunity to submit his explanation, but he did not submit any further explanation.

¶13

One of the charges levelled against the petitioner was that he has not provided essential commodities to BPL card holders namely, Gyanwati, Mustaq, Ali Ahmad, Ramphal, Manju Devi and Rambaja. The petitioner denied the charge and submitted that the essential commodities were provided to the aforesaid ration card holders in the presence of Village Pradhan and the nominated supervising officer. However, the petitioner did not submit any certificate from the Village Pradhan or the nominated supervising officer and he did not submit any document to substantiate his contention of having given the essential commodities to the aforesaid ration card holders. Certain other charges were also levelled against the petitioner and those were also found to be established. Accordingly, the SDM, Nanpara, Bahraich passed the impugned order dated 10.04.2015 cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner filed Appeal No. 124 against the aforesaid order dated 10.04.2015, which has been dismissed by means of judgement and order dated 27.02.2016, wherein the appellate authority- Deputy Commissioner (Food), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda has found that several ration card holders had complained that the petitioner was not providing essential commodities to them regularly. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his explanation along with distribution documents, but he did not submit the same. The nominated supervising authority submitted a report stating that the petitioner's shop was locked on 06.02.2015 and although there were numerous ration card holders, the petitioner did not come to his shop till 03.30 pm. Although the petitioner

¶15

was given an opportunity to submit his explanation along with distribution documents, but he did not do so. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

¶16

Challenging the validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on the basis of an inspection carried out by an employee of Supply Department, as is evident from the suspension order dated 27.02.2016. He has further submitted that the Supply Officer is the competent authority for carrying out inspection and any employee of the Supply Department could not have inspected the petitioner's fair price shop.

¶17

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement and order of this Court in the case of Arif Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.10.2017 in Writ Petition No. 4114 (M/S) of 2014, wherein this Court held that a supply clerk had no authority to inspect the fair price shop.

¶18

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has relied upon a Division Bench judgement in the case of Shankar Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 08.12.2021 in Writ Petition No. 32679 (M/S) of 2019, whereby the Larger Bench decided following two questions referred by a Single Judge Bench of the Court:

¶19

"(a) What are the parameters of principles of natural justice to be followed in inquiries conducted by Licensing Authority on complaints of irregularities in the distribution of Essential Commodities?

¶20

(b) Whether the observation made in Paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 UPLBED 947 regarding holding of "full fledged enquiry" after suspension of license can be read in such a manner as would require the whole gamut of steps required in disciplinary proceedings of Government servants to be followed?"

¶21

The Larger Bench answered the aforesaid questions in the

¶22

following words:

¶23

"(i) It is held that the parameters for an enquiry to be conducted against the licensee for the irregularities committed by the licensee in terms of the Distribution of Essential Commodities is on broad principles of natural justice where the competent authority shall provide a show cause notice to the licensee indicating the violations and irregularities committed by the licensee with sufficient particularity to enable him to respond to the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the decision can be taken by the competent authority by a reasoned and a speaking order. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry;

¶24

(ii) It is held that the words "full fledged enquiry" as used by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision of Puran Singh (supra) has to be read in context with paras 4 and 5 of the Government Order of July 2004 and the scheme therein which merely requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and does not provide for a detailed enquiry involving various stages and steps as are required to be met in disciplinary enquiry against a government servant."

¶25

When I examine the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Shankar Prasad (supra), it appears that although initially, the complaint given by some villagers was inquired by an employee of the Supply Department, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the SDM, Nanpara, Bahraich and it is the SDM, who had conducted inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to submit his explanation along with distribution documents, but he submitted his explanation without putting his signatures thereon and he did not submit any document. Thereafter, he was again given an opportunity to submit his explanation, but he did not avail the opportunity. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second notice granted an opportunity of merely three days to the petitioner to file his reply. The said notice dated 27.03.2015 was received by the petitioner on the same date, but he did not submit any reply. In case, the petitioner felt that three days' time granted to him is inadequate, it was open for him to seek further time, but he did not do so. The impugned

¶26

order was passed on 10.04.2015 i.e., after two weeks since issuance of the second show cause notice dated 27.03.2015, but the petitioner did not submit any reply.

¶27

In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of an inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and not on the basis of any inquiry conducted by any employee of the Supply Department. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the inquiry report submitted without jurisdiction, has no force.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed .

¶29

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Shravan

¶30

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

Raj Kumar v. Dy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Gonda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raj Kumar v. Dy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Gonda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India,Stressed Assets Mgmt.Branch Thru. Auth.Officer/Chief Manager Rajeev Kumar Verma Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lko. Thru. Its Presiding Officer and 2 Others

Panna Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Bindu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Garden View Owners Welfare Association Thru Secy. and Another Vs the Dy. Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Lucknow and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Food and Civil Supplies and Ors.

Nagar Palika Parishad Raebareilly Thru Executive Officer Vs Prescribed Aythority Labour Cour Lucknow and Another