AHALKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P THRU SECY FOOD AND SUPPLY
LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-26
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 09,2012

AHALKAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THRU SECY FOOD AND SUPPLY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Sri S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Petitioner's fair price shop agreement/ licence/ dealership was cancelled by Deputy Collector Sadar, Badaun through order dated 13.09.2007. Against the said order, petitioner filed Appeal No.825 of 2006-07. Deputy Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, Bareilly Division, Bareilly dismissed the appeal through order dated 09.05.2008, hence this writ petition.
(2.) In the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, it is mentioned that after receiving complaints against the petitioner he got the matter enquired by Senior Supply Inspector and according to the said report the food-grains and the kerosene oil were not being distributed by the petitioner on fixed rates, hence through order dated 18.08.2007 petitioner's licence was suspended and explanation was called for along with last three months' sale records. The charge-sheet was received by the petitioner on 27.08.2007 and he gave his explanation on 01.09.2007. It is further mentioned in the said order that the explanation was not satisfactory hence final show cause notice was issued on 01.09.2007 referring again to the charge-sheet/ show cause notice dated 18.08.2007. However, the petitioner did not submit reply on all the points. Thereafter, it is mentioned that even after perusal of explanation given by the petitioner dated 01.09.2007, reply was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter, the agreement/ licence was cancelled. This is utterly unsatisfactory approach. Absolutely no reason has been given. It has not been mentioned that what was the excess amount which was being charged by the petitioner and who were the complainants.
(3.) Appellate Court also did not give reasons or mentioned specific instances. Only this much is mentioned that in the enquiry it was found that B.P.L. card-holders were not being distributed commodities since January, 2007, A.P.L. Card-holders were not being distributed kerosene oil since January, 2007 and some Antyodaya (poorest of the poor) card-holders were not being distributed kerosene oil since July, 2007. It was further mentioned that on the ration card farzi entries regarding distribution were being made. It is not clear that in case no commodity was being distributed then how the petitioner got cards and made the entries. It is not mentioned as to whether pursuant to the direction of the Deputy Collector petitioner had submitted the sale registers or not?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.