Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) On 8.6.2012, a show cause notice was issued, to which, the petitioner replied on 26.6.2012. The licence to run the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled by an order dated 27.8.2012, against which, he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 26.10.2013. Aggrieved thereof, he has filed the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: (1) The Government Order dated 29.7.2004 lays down the procedure by which an enquiry had to be conducted for the cancellation of the agreement/licence of a fair price shop. He read out the relevant provisions of the Government Order, which is being reproduced hereunder:- (ii) The show cause notice dated 8.6.2012 does not indicate the punishment, which the petitioner would be getting after he submitted the reply to the show cause notice. (iii) After the petitioner submitted his reply, there was no date fixed for the enquiry and also no place of enquiry was fixed, where he could have produced his witnesses and could have placed the documentary evidence before the enquiry officer, who was enquiring into the matter. In the Full Bench decision of Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 3 ADJ 659, it has been held that a full-fledged enquiry had to take place in pursuance of the show cause notice for cancellation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out paragraph No. 35 of the Full Bench judgment , which is being reproduced hereunder:- 35."Para 4 and 5 of the Government Order clearly permits fulfledged enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice for cancellation and then final decision in the matter. So far as the order of suspension is concerned, Government Order does not provide any appeal and at the same time there was no contemplation of signing an agreement as was made obligatory pursuant to Distribution Order of 2004."
(2.) Following the Full Bench decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various other judgments have been passed, wherein the importance of the Government Order had been highlighted. From the judgment of Santara Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, 2016 2 ADJ 70 , the petitioner read out paragraphs No. 6, 8 and 9 and the same are being reproduced hereunder: "6. In other words it means that an independent inquiry before passing an order of cancellation of license to run a fair price shop is mandatory and a show cause notice simplicitor is not sufficient to conform to the principles of natural justice. 8. The supply of the copy of the inquiry report if any is a sine qua non in furtherance of the principles of natural justice in cases where such an inquiry report forms the basis of the impugned order. Thus, the non supply of the same also vitiates the order. 9. The supply of the copy of the inquiry report if any is a sine qua non in furtherance of the principles of natural justice in cases where such an inquiry report forms the basis of the impugned order. Thus, the non supply of the same also vitiates the order." (iv) The preliminary enquiry was initiated on the complaints of certain Antayodaya Card holders, namely, Udaiveer and Munna Lal and BPL Card holders Ram Lakhan, Smt. Triveni Devi and Shri Hawaldaar and without having an objective satisfaction that the enquiry would result in the cancellation of the shop, the petitioner's agreement was suspended and a vague show cause notice was issued. The complaints were also not made in the manner it has been prescribed in the Government Order dated 23.4.2003. (v) The enquiry, which took place only on the reply being submitted by the petitioner did not take into account the various affidavits, which the petitioner had filed, which included the affidavits of the complainants also. The petitioner had also produced the stock register and the distribution register which indicated that he had been selling the essential commodities at the proper rate and therefore it could not be said that the petitioner had been selling the essential commodities at prices which were higher than the rate fixed (vi) Perusal of the order also indicates that it is only a subjective satisfaction of the cancelling authority, which had resulted in the order of cancellation. (vii) The appellate authority also simply dittoed the findings of the punishing authority and had dismissed the appeal. (ix) Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that all findings of the preliminary enquiry which were arrived at behind the back of the petitioner could not be used against him. In this connection, he relied upon a judgment reported in , Abu Baker vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 6 ADJ 339.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel submits that the evidence as was there before the cancelling authority was sufficient to cancel the agreement/licence to run the fair price shop. He submits that the findings as were arrived at in the preliminary enquiry were sufficient to cancel the agreement.;