Shivdhar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and have perused the record. 7. as already stated above, in none of the orders, which include the suspension order, cancellation order as well as the appellate order, the respondent authorities have specified as to what illegality was being committed by the petitioner......that all that the appellate authority has stated in paragraph 6 of the impugned order is that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and that there is no illegality with the order of the licensing authority, hence the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.6. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at no stage, his reply that the food items as allotted to the petitioner by the respondent authorities were duly distributed, has not been considered by the respondent authorities, has force.7. as already stated above, in none of the orders, which include the suspension order, cancellation order as well as the appellate order, the respondent authorities have specified as to what illegality was being committed by the petitioner. while suspending and thereafter cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner, the least that was expected is that they should specify the specific charges against the licence holder. a licensee is not expected to give a detailed or specific reply to vague charges. in the present case, the petitioner, though was given a vague notice but he had given a specific reply that he was allotted food grains.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Vineet Saran, J.

1. The petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. By order dated 25.7.2007, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was placed under suspension. Reply to the charges was given by the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Licensing Authority), the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which has been dismissed on 24.10.2008 by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi. Aggrieved by the said order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and order dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi, this writ petition has been filed.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.

3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice along with suspension order dated 25.7.2007 is absolutely vague and all that it states is that to some card holders the petitioner distributes food items whereas to some other card holders, he distributes only kerosene oil and not the food items. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has categorically stated that on 26.8.2003 the petitioner was allotted 112 card holders for distribution of essential commodities including the food items, which is being done regularly by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was allotted 117 more card holders, but no allotment of food grains was ever made by the Food Department in respect to the 117 card holders attached with the shop of the petitioner and only quota of kerosene oil was allotted for 117 card holders, which was duly distributed by the petitioner.

4. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that despite the petitioner having given the specific number of card holders attached to him regarding some of whom the food grains items were allotted to the petitioner, which he distributed and for the remaining 117 card holders only the kerosene oil was allotted by the respondent authorities and hence that alone was distributed to them, the same has not been considered by the Licensing Authority and by merely reiterating the charges against the petitioner, as had been mentioned in the suspension order, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled.

5. Perusal of the appellate order also goes to show that all that the appellate authority has stated in paragraph 6 of the impugned order is that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and that there is no illegality with the order of the Licensing Authority, hence the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at no stage, his reply that the food items as allotted to the petitioner by the respondent authorities were duly distributed, has not been considered by the respondent authorities, has force.

7. As already stated above, in none of the orders, which include the suspension order, cancellation order as well as the appellate order, the respondent authorities have specified as to what illegality was being committed by the petitioner. While suspending and thereafter cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner, the least that was expected is that they should specify the specific charges against the licence holder. A licensee is not expected to give a detailed or specific reply to vague charges. In the present case, the petitioner, though was given a vague notice but he had given a specific reply that he was allotted food grains for only 112 card holders, which was duly distributed and since he was allotted the kerosene quota alone for the remaining 117 card holders, food grains items could not be distributed to such card holders. This specific reply has not been considered by the Licensing Authority or by the appellate authority and by merely reiterating the vague charges as mentioned in the suspension order, the licence had been cancelled. The same would not be permissible in law.

8. As stated above, the charges against the petitioner being vague and the reply having not been considered by the respondent authorities, the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and order dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi are quashed.

There shall be no order as to costs.