Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and the counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Also perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. He was, as per the relevant rules, required to deposit some fixed amount of money every month, which was necessary for lifting the essential commodities so that the same could be distributed in the next month. In the instant case, the petitioner was required to deposit the fixed sum of money by the 22nd of October, 2012. Having not done so the petitioner's fair price shop was suspended and he was required to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner replied on 09.11.2012 and stated that as he had been in jail on 26.09.2012 and as he was only released on 23.10.2012, he could not deposit the required sum by the 22nd of October, 2012 and, therefore, he was to be excused for depositing the money a day late. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilari, District Moradabad did not believe the case of the petitioner and stated that he had not given any evidence with regard to his reply, and, therefore, cancelled the shop of the petitioner. While cancelling the shop, the Sub-Divisional Officer also looked into certain events anterior to the one for which the petitioner was being tried for. The petitioner's past since 2003 down till 2012 was traced and it was found that he was not a fit person who could run the fair price shop. The Appellate Court also confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer by its order dated 05.12.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(3.) The petitioner submitted that one day's delay in depositing the money should not have been made a basis by the cancelling authority to cancel the licence. In fact he submitted that under exceptional circumstance he was actually, entitled for a leave. He relied on , Ram Nath Vs. State of U.P. and Others,2010 9 ADJ 398 and specifically relied on paragraph 9 and paragraph 17 of the judgement. He read out the paragraphs 9 and 17 and therefore they are being reproduced here asunder:- 9. Before testing the validity of impugned order of cancellation certain conditions of the agreement on the strength of which petitioner has been running the fair price shop is required to be looked into, which are quoted below: 17- Otherwise also we are of the view that performance of duty either by government servants or persons functioning under the statutory contract is utmost concern of an employee or person who is working under the contract but simultaneously they also owe certain duties to manage their family affairs as the performance of public duties as well as to look after the family affairs are inter-woven both have closed nexus with each other and in absence of any one of it the functioning of social life is not possible. The person working under the terms of the contract is required to complete the contract in terms of the agreement, simultaneously he is also duty bound to perform his duty towards his family affairs. No doubt, importance has to be given to performance of public duty but simultaneously under such circumstances as in the case of the petitioner, the performance of duty towards wife cannot be ignored. Here in this case, the petitioner's wife has been ailing and the petitioner after giving an application seeking leave has proceeded for treatment of his wife and after her cure when he came back, he filed an application for resuming his duty of fair price shop agent. This kind of absence cannot be treated as deliberate absence. We are of the view that for such kind of absence, such action are not warranted particularly in the circumstances where there is no inconvenience to the public in getting the scheduled commodities for which fair price shop agents are appointed.;