- (1.) BY the Court.-BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26/9/2009 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) with the further prayer seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to restore the supply of scheduled commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the card holders.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner happens to be fair price shop agent of Village Megi Nagla, Tehsit Faridpur, District Bareilly. For running the fair price shop an agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. It appears the petitioner has fallen ill and applied for 15 days' leave on 22/2/2006. THE required leave was sanctioned by the concerned authority. THEreafter, after expiry of the period of leave the petitioner has resumed his duties as fair price shop agent on 30/5/2006. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has further made an application seeking leave with effect from 18/7/2009 to 5/8/2009 on the ground of illness of his wife. This application was filed on 16/7/2009. On the said application, the respondent No. 2 has suspended the agreement to run fair price shop executed in favour of the petitioner on 21.7.2009 and attached the cardholders of the petitioner's shop permanently with the shop of respondent No. 3, one Sri Om Prakash fair price shop agent of Village Sarkada, Tehsil Faridpur, District Bareilly. It appears while the petitioner's wife was under treatment, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14/9/2009 requiring the petitioner to file his reply within three days as to why recommendation be not made for cancellation of agreement to run fair price shop for his absence. Since the petitioner's wife had been ailing, the petitioner could not furnish his reply and rushed to Delhi for treatment of his wife. On return, the petitioner came to know that his agreement to run fair price shop has been cancelled by the respondent No. 2 on 26/9/2009. Immediately after coming to know about the order of cancellation the petitioner has filed an application on 25/6/2010 narrating the entire facts for non-appearance and further to restore the agreement executed in his favour for running fair price shop but nothing has been done by the respondents. While assailing the impugned order of cancellation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that there is no provision for sanction of medical leave and further the petitioner has failed to file his reply to the show-cause notice sent to the petitioner, whereas there is a specific provision for grant of leave to the fair price shop agent and further non filing of reply to the show cause notice was inevitable as the petitioner's wife was seriously ill and he had to reach Delhi for her treatment In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, had the proper opportunity was given to the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have furnished his reply in detail. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the earlier suspension order as well as the impugned cancellation orders have been passed in hot haste manner without there being any provision for the same on such kind of absence.
(3.) REFUTING the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel, in support of the order passed by the respondent 2 submitted that there was no scope except to pass the impugned order of cancellation as the petitioner did not furnish his reply and was absent without there being any information. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and perused the record.;