ASHOK PATERIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come before this Court ventilating the grievance against the order dated 6-6-2011 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Collector in appeal filed by respondent No. 4, against the order of Sub Divisional Officer, by which complaint made against the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner was permitted to run the fair price shop.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise of filing of this writ petition are that an enquiry was conducted on the basis of some complaint made against the petitioner and an order was passed cancelling the permit to run fair price shop granted to the petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter 'Scheme' for brevity). Unsuccessful appeal was filed by the petitioner against the said order and after dismissal of the appeal, writ petition was filed before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed, therefore, a writ appeal was filed by the petitioner being W.A. No. 335/2010. The said writ appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 20-10-2010 and after considering the validity of the scheme and the action taken by the respondents, the Division Bench of this Court reached to the conclusion that neither the order was properly passed by the Sub Divisional Officer nor the appeal of the petitioner was considered in appropriate manner by the Collector. After quashing the orders so passed, the matter was remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer for holding the enquiry afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the other persons. The Division Bench of this Court passed the following order : "The matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and shall pass a reasoned order. Needless to state that the Sub Divisional Officer shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and to adduce the evidence and shall hear respondent No. 4 as well as the complainants. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months." Since during the pendency of the enquiry direction was given to make alternate arrangement, same was done and the fair price shop was attached to some other society.

(3.) If the findings were categorically recorded after affording full opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 4 by the Sub Divisional Officer, the Collector was not right in considering that certain persons were not examined as witnesses. The respondent No. 4 was represented by a lawyer and an officer/office bearer of the society before the Sub Divisional Officer. IF the statements of witnesses were recorded by the said officer, who were produced by the petitioner, and cross-examination of said witnesses was done by the respondent No. 4, it was in the wisdom of respondent No. 4 to examine any witness in support of its claim. IF such a right was not exercised by the respondent No. 4, the Collector was not right in holding that the Sub Divisional Officer was required to take action in that respect. Such a lacuna, which was created by respondent No. 4, was not to be fulfilled by making a remand order in such a manner.