SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. - (1.) On 24.10.2007, charges were levelled against the petitioner to which he was required to submit his reply. However, in the absence of a reply the licence to run the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled. It was stated that as the petitioner had not replied, charges against him stood proved. However, an observation was also made in the order that the licence had to be cancelled as there was a first information report under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, filed against the petitioner. An ex parte report dated 23.10.2007 which was prepared at the back of the petitioner was also taken into account and the licence was cancelled on 14.3.2008. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Court also, simply on account of the fact that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of cancellation dated 14.3.2007 on 24.9.2011. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:- I. Even if the show cause was not replied to, it was the duty of the Sub Divisional Officer to have enquired into the charges and only upon having seen that the charges were proved that the order of termination of licence should have been passed. II. There was no oral as also documentary evidence taken into account by the Cancelling Authority before passing the order. III. It is settled law that the allegations of an F.I.R. cannot be taken into account for cancelling the licence to run a fair price shop and an independent enquiry had to be undertaken. IV. The enquiry as is contemplated under the Governemnt Order dated 29.7.2004 was also undertaken and therefore the proceedings were absolutely vitiated. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as no reply was given it was to be deemed that the petitioner had admitted his guilt.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the orders dated 14.3.2008 and the Appellate Order dated 24.9.2011 deserve to be quashed. Undoubtedly an allegation made in a pleading which goes unrebutted might be believed but an issue or a charge, which has been framed after the exchange of pleadings or after a preliminary enquiry, has to be proved. This is what has also been held in Writ C No. 46648 of 2017 Aajad Kumar v. State Of U.P. and 2 Others decided on 23.10.2017. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that in view of the fact that no reply was given charges would be deemed to have been proved has no legs to stand.;