- (1.) NOTICE on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) WE do not find it necessary to issue notice to respondents 5 and 6, who are the complainants. The petitioner is a sitting fair price shop dealer. It appears that certain complaints were made against the petitioner, on which, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had made an enquiry, in which it was found that the complaints were not genuine, but on finding that there were some mistakes in the books, he forfeited the security amount to the extent of Rs. 500/-, and allowed the petitioner to continue with the functioning of the shop. Not being satisfied with the said action, the complainants approached the Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the Division straightaway issued a direction on 3.7.2010 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaiserganj, saying that in continuance of his letter dated 26.5.2010 and the order dated 20.5.2010, the supply to the petitioner be stopped and enquiry be got conducted after constituting a team.
(3.) THIS Court had an occasion to consider the power of the Commissioner in issuing any such direction or taking any action straightaway, of his own in a matter where certain complaints have been raised against the sitting fair price shop dealer. The Court in the case of Lav Kush Yadav vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others (Writ Petition No. 6758 (MB) of 2010), decided on 20.7.2010 observed as under: "So far the order of Commissioner restraining the petitioner from functioning as a dealer and stopping the supply is concerned, it is very obvious that unless the agreement is under suspension or stands terminated, no such power can be exercised nor the dealer can be restrained from distributing the essential commodities. We also take note of the fact that the Commissioner has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint and to order for restraining the dealer from functioning as such and for stopping the supply.";