RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) IN all the afore-captioned writ petitions, the petitioners are Fair Price Shop licencees and the question involved is as to whether non-furnishing the copy of the complaint or preliminary enquiry report or the inspection report or any other document, which has been utilized against the Fair Price Shop licencee while cancelling the licence, amounts to violation of principle of natural justice or not. The assertion of the petitioners is that the plea of opportunity of hearing and non-supply of relevant documents, which were taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority, was raised before the appellate authority but the same has not been dealt with in its correct perspective.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. According to State Counsel, to ensure proper distribution of essential commodities, which are bare need of the public they are to be distributed through the public distribution system for which Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted by the Central Government. Pursuant to the powers conferred by the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, the State Government for maintaining the supplies of the food grains and other essential commodities and to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair price vide notification dated 20.12.2004, notified U.P. Schedule Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. This Distribution Order was notified by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act of 1955 read with provisions contained in Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Apart from the U.P. Schedule Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (in short referred to as the Distribution Order of 2004) which is w.e.f. 30.12.2004, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 29.7.2004 on the subject of monitoring/regulating various kind of procedures. Elaborating his arguments, State Counsel submitted that Clause-4 of the Distribution Order provides that a person granted fair price shop is to sign an agreement under sub-clause(3) for running the fair price shop before the competent authority prior to the coming into effect of the said appointment. Clause 25 provides observance of the conditions as the State Government stipulates whereas Clause 28(3) of the Order provides filing of appeal against the order of suspension or cancellation of the agreement. Thus a person appointed to run a fair price shop acts as an agent of the State Government, who is under an obligation to sign an agreement. The agent so appointed is under an obligation to maintain record of supply and distribution of scheduled commodities, maintenance of accounts, keeping of the registers filing returns and issue of receipt to Identity Card holder and other matters. In some of the writ petitions, it has been indicated in the counter affidavit that the cancellation of agreement relating to fair price shop is a non-statutory agreement and the orders regarding cancellation of non-statutory agreement are not amenable to writ jurisdiction before this Court. In this regard reliance has been placed on Gopal Das Sahu and another vs. State of U.P. and others; 1991 All.L.J.498 and Kallu Khan vs. State of U.P. and another [2008(6) ADJ 443 (DB)] and other cases.
(3.) SRI Rakesh Srivastava, Standing Counsel also contended that when a fair price shop licence holder committs irregularities or is found to have indulged in the activities in contravention to the licence of Fair Price shop dealer, his agreement/licence is suspended. Before passing order of suspension of the licence, there is no contemplation of any notice and opportunity. Adverting to the present cases, he submitted that the order of cancellation was passed after providing the licence holder an opportunity of hearing which would tantamounts to passing the order after observing the principles of natural justice and as such it cannot be said that there was any infirmity. He further submitted that the appeal has also been dealt with by the Appellate Authority in a proper manner and after recording cogent and plausible findings and only then, it was dismissed. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid grounds.;