Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16.12.2003 and 19.7.2004, passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sadar, Maharajganj and the Commissioner (Food and Supplies), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, respectively besides a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to run his fair price shop.
3. The petitioner was allotted a fair price shop in village Gohana, Post Mansoolganj, Tehsil Sadar, district Maharajganj on 27.9.1991.
4. On a complaint made by the Gram Pradhan with regard to irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari recommended suspension of the fair price shop of the petitioner on the said complaint from the Gram Pradhan. Even before suspension of the fair price shop of the petitioner a resolution for allotment of the fair price shop in favour of one Sri Ram Manohar was passed. The licence of the petitioner to run the fair price shop was cancelled by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sadar, Maharajganj vide order dated 4.10.2002. The petitioner was directed to furnish his explanation within a week. It was claimed by the petitioner that the Gram Pradhan was his pattidar and there was an election rivalry between them, as such the complaint was made by him to put pressure upon him to make him in disadvantageous position and get the shop allotted in favour of Ram Manohar.
5. The Up-Ziladhikari vide order dated 29.11.2002, found that the affidavits filed by the cardholders/ consumers and the Gram Pradhan were contradictory. He therefore got an enquiry conducted through the Naib-Tehsildar and the District Supply Officer in an open meeting in the village. The aforesaid officers submitted their enquiry report on. 23.11.2002 in which it was found that the distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner from his fair price shop was satisfactory but he was charging excess price than the rates fixed by the Government. It was also found that the Gram Pradhan who is also pattidar was making complaints due to enmity. After considering the documents on record as well as the report of the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, the Up-Ziladhikari, Sadar. Maharajganj held that the allotment of the shop prior to suspension of the shop of the petitioner was arbitrary and against the procedure prescribed under the public distribution system. A finding of fact was also given by him that the card holders/consumers attached to the fair price shop of the petitioner were agitated by the petitioner's conduct of charging excess price and in so far as B.P.L. food-grains is concerned the same had been transferred to another shop, hence the security of Rs. 250 deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and he was given an opportunity in public interest with the condition that in future he will not charge higher price for the essential commodities. The said order dated 29.11.2002 is as under :
vr,o Jh tokgj dk vuqcU/k i= tufgr esa ,dvolj nsrs gq, bl 'krZ ds lkFk cgky fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkfo'k; esa fu/kkZfjrnj ls vf/kd nj ij forj.k fd;s tkus dh iqujko`fr u gks lkFk gh lkFk vf/kd nj fy;stkus ds fufek nqdkunkj }kjk tek tekur dh lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k : 250 'kklu ds i{kesa tCr dh tkrh gS A
g v @&
v:.k izdk'k
mi&ftykf;/kdkjh] lnj egjktxat A
6. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 9.10.2002 to respondent No. 3, Up-Ziladhikari, who vide order dated 29.11.2002 came to know that the complaints were made against the petitioner, inter alia, by the Gram Pradhan due to inter-rivalry between them.
7. It appears that subsequently further complaints were received by the authorities against the petitioner alleging that he was continuing to commit irregularities and charging excess price for the essential commodities including kerosene oil. The Up-Ziladhikari cancelled the licence of the petitioner on these complaints vide order dated 31.3.2003, without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner.
8. It appears from the record that the conduct of the petitioner is incorrigible as in the past also he has a history of committing such irregularities. Charging excess price and not maintaining proper registers and documents is clear violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Considering the fact that the licence of the petitioner was cancelled, in view of public interest it was directed that a new fair price shop be allotted in open public meeting of the Gram Panchayat within 15 days. The quota of ration allotted to the shop of the petitioner was also transferred to the nearest fair price shop. The said order dated 31.3.2003 is as under :
mi;qZDr rF;ksa ds ifj'khyu ls Li'V gS fdnqdkunkj }kjk ;su&dsu; izdkjs.k vko';d oLrqvksa ds orju.k esa ukukizdkj lsfolaxfr;ka mRiUu dj tufgr ds fo: dk;Z fd;k tkrk gS rFkk budk iwoZ dk Hkh ;ghbfrgkl jgk gS tSlk fd bUgsa vafre volj fn;k Hkh tk pqdk gS] fQj Hkh buds }kjk vf/kdewY; ysuk] vfHkys[k dk j[k&j;[kko u djkuk rFkk tufgr ds fo: dk;Z fd;k tkukiqu% tkap ls izfjyf{kr gS A bl izdkj nqdkunkj }kjk m iz vuqlwpfr oLrq forj.kvkns'k 1990 ds vUrxZr tkjh vuqcU/ki= ds 'krksZ dk Li'v mYy?kau fd;k tkukLo;a esa Hkh izekf.kr gS ,slh n'kk esa mDr nqdkunkj voius dk;Ziz.kkyh esa lq/kkju yk;s tkus dh n'kk esa vc bldk vuqcU/k i= xzke iapk;r xksguk esa cus jgus dkdksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gS A
vr% Jh tokgj mfpr ewY; fosrkxzke iapk;r xksguk] fodkl [k.M ifj;jk dks vuqcU/k rRdky izhkko ls fujLr fd;ktkrk gS A [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh ifj;jk@xzke iz/kku xzke iapkr xksguk dks funsZ'kfn;k tkrk gS fd tuHkkoukvksa dks n`f'Vxr j[krs gq, ,d i{k ds vUnjfu'i{k :i ls xzke iapk;r dh [kqyh cSBd djkdj u;s nqdkunkj ds p;u dhdk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djk;sa A{ks=h; iwfrZ fujh{kd dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDrxzke izpk;r esa u;s nqdkunkj ds p;u gksu rd lfUudV ds xzke iapk;r ds nqdkunkj lsmDr iapk;r dks dksVk lEc fd;s tkus gsrq rRdky dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djsa A
g @ v
v:.k izdk'k
mi&ftykf;/kdkjh] lnj egkjktxat A
9. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner (Food and Supplies), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, who after hearing the parties remanded the matter back to the Up-Ziladhikari vide order dated 9.7.2003, for passing appropriate order in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. It was further directed by the Commissioner that within a period of three months the Up-Ziladhikari may pass order for alternate arrangement for distribution of essential commodities and kerosene oil through some nearby fair price shop and in case the matter was not decided within the aforesaid period of three months, the petitioner may be permitted to distribute the essential commodities and the kerosene oil through his fair price shop.
10. After the matter was remanded back the Up-Ziladhikari, vide order dated 16.12.2003, again rejected the objection of the petitioner against the complaints that he was charging excess price for the commodities besides committing other irregularities. The finding of the Up-Ziladhikari are as under :
mi;qZDrleLr rF;ksa ds ifj'khyu ,oa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li'V gS fd vUR;ksn;] vU; ;kstukds [kkn;ku vkfn ds forj.k esa vfu;ferrk ds vkjksi esa fnukad 4-10-2002 dks tokgjdh nqdku fuyafcr gqbZ Fkh A ftUgsa vafre volj ds lkFk fnukad 29-10-2002 dks cgkyfd;k x;k Fkk A iqu [kkn;ku forj.k ds vfu;ferrk esa gh ftykf/kdkjh egksn; dsvkns'k ij ftyk fodkl vf/kdkjh }kjk tokgj dh nqdku dh tkp dh x;h ftlesa tokgjds fuyEcu ds iwoZ ;kuh fnukad 4-10-2002 ls iwoZ 25 fdyksxzke [kkn;ku fn;k tkrkFkk rc 75 :i;s vkSj 35 fdyksxzke [kkn;ku ds cnys 100 : ewY; fy;k tkrk Fkk rFkkfe rsy 11 :i;s izfr yhVj fn;k tkrk Fkk A fe rsy vadu dkMZ ij u gksusls ;g Hkh Li'V G s fd fu;fer :i ls blds }kjk forj.k ugha fd;k x;k trkjgk gS blds vykok buds }kjk tkp ds le; tuojh] 2003 ds iwoZ dk fooj.k jftLVjesa ugha fn[kk;k x;k rFkk ekSds ij voxr djk;k x;k fd og fey ugha jgk gS blls HkhLi'V gS fd buds }kjk fu;fer :i ls forj.k ugha fd;k tkrk jgk gS cfYd vf/kdewY; fy;k tkuk izekf.kr gS A ekg fnLkEcj] 2002 dk [kkn;ku forj.k jftLVj tkstkp fjiksVZ ds lkFk izkIr gS ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd ykHkkfFk;ksa ds ftrusuke vafdr fd;s x;s gS cfYd LiEHk [kkyh gS tks O;oLFkk dks lafnX/k cukrk gSvkSj xzkeh.k oklh nwljs fosrk dk pquko djkus gsrq bPNqd jgs A mDr ls Lor%Li'V gks tkrk gS fd tokgj }kjk ;su&dsu; izdkjs.k vko';d oLrqvksa dsforj.k ukuk izdkj ls O;o?kku mRiUu dj tu fgr ds fo:) dk;Z fd;k tkrk jgk gS vkSjbudk Hkh ;gh bfrgkl ik;k tkrk gS A bl izdkj tokgj }kjk m iz vuqlwfpr oLrqforj.k vkns'k 1990 ds vUrxZr tkjh vuqcU/k i= ds 'krksZ dk mYya?ku fd;k tkuk Lo;aesa izekf.kr gS A
rr eesa dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl fnukad 22-8-2003 ds e esa vihykFkhs tokgj }kjk izLrqrmkj fnukad 10-11-2003 vk/kkjghu] y{;ghu ,oa cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;ktkrk gS A
fnukad 16-12-2003
g @ v
Mk prqHkqZth xqIr
mi&ftykf;/kdkjh] lnj
egjktxat A
11. The petitioner again filed appeal against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2003 before the Commissioner (Food and Supplies), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. However, the appeal was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner for disposal. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 19.7.2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.
12. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the fair price shop was allotted to respondent No. 5 even before suspension of the licence of the shop is not sustainable as the licence of the shop was restored to him by the Up-Ziladhikari. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that again and again his licence to run the fair price shop is being cancelled on the similar nature of complaints.
13. This submission has no force as the Up-Ziladhikari as well as the Commissioner have come to a conclusion that the petitioner is continuing to commit irregularities and has been charging excess price for the essential commodities supplied by him even after order dated 29.11.2002.
14. It appears from the record that the petitioner was involved in charging excess price of essential commodities and kerosene oil as well as in black marketing of essential commodities. He was also fabricating records and was not maintaining records/documents properly and thus breached the terms of the licence/agreement.
15. Fair price shop is meant for distribution of essential commodities to the poor class at reasonable prices. Charging excess amount for the essential commodities, committing irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities, fabricating entries in the ration cards and black marketing frustrates the very purpose of the licence granted to run the fair price shop. No person can be permitted to earn money by adopting unfair means.
16. In the facts and circumstances, this Court declines to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of a person as the petitioner.
17. The petition is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. No order as to costs.