- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 20.12.2014 and 5.9.2014, passed by opposite parties, whereby the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner for running fair price shop in Village Panchayat Bhawanipur, Block Mujehna, Tehsil and District Gonda has been cancelled and the appeal preferred in this regard has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned cancelling the agreement of fair price shop has been passed in most arbitrary and illegal manner and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The opposite party no.4/District Supply Officer, District Gonda without appreciating the procedure prescribed in this regard and without providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner had cancelled the agreement of fair price shop in question. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, had preferred an appeal under Section 28 (3) of Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 before the Divisional Commissioner concerned. However, the appellate authority without appreciating the contentions raised in appeal has dismissed the appeal in most cursory manner.
(3.) Submission is that the order impugned dated 5.7.2014 has been passed relaying on the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014 without providing copy of said enquiry report to the petitioner and without calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation on the said enquiry report. It is submitted that the District Magistrate on the basis of certain complaints made against the alleged non -distribution of essential commodities had directed the area rationing officer vide letter dated 30.6.2014 to hold an enquiry. The Area Rationing Officer, Colonelganj, Gonda had made spot inspection at the fair price shop in question on 5.7.2014 and had recorded statement of certain card holders and thereafter submitted the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014. The opposite party no.4, relying on the said report on the very next date i.e. 5.9.2014 had passed the impugned order cancelling the agreement of fair price shop in question. It is contended that this Court in the case of Maiku Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others; [2009 (27) LCD 1192] has held that in case the order for cancellation of agreement of fair price shop has been passed without supplying copy of enquiry report, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity of hearing as he was although called upon to submit explanation to the show cause notice but only statement of certain card holders were provided, however, the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014 was not provided to the petitioner. Since the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014 was the basis of passing of the impugned order, as such, it was required to be provided to the petitioner to give him adequate opportunity to submit his explanation which was not done, as such, the order impugned was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.;