Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) After a show cause notice was issued on 12.7.2010 by which the licence to run the fair price shop of the petitioner no. 1 was suspended and a reply was asked for, the Secretary of the petitioner no. 1 filed a reply. Thereupon an enquiry was undertaken and the licence to run the fair price shop was cancelled on 20.4.2010. The petitioner no. 1 through the petitioner no. 2 filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 12.12.2012. Aggrieved thereof the instant writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioner, which is a society, has in the very beginning submitted that as per the Government order dated 18.12.1980, the licence of a fair price shop which was being run by a co-operative society could not be cancelled and at the most the Assistant Registrar was to be informed if any irregularity was found and action had to be taken against the erring employee. He quoted Clause 8 of the Government order which is being reproduced here as under:-
(3.) Further submissions of the petitioner are:- I. The notice as was issued on 12.7.2010 by which the licence of the petitioners' shop was suspended and a show cause notice was issued does not disclose as to whom the notice was issued. Even though the notice had been forwarded to the salesman Dharmendra Pathak and the Secretary Srinath Pandey learned counsel the petitioners states that it could not by any stretch of imagination be a notice which had been specifically sent to them. II. Apart from the fact that the enquiry was not conducted in the manner as has been provided in the Government Order the respondents have also not adhered to the Government order 23.4.2003 which provides the manner in which a complaint had to be filed. He submits that in the instant case neither was the complaint filed in the manner provided in the Government Order nor was it ever looked into properly. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the show cause notice was received by the society, the Secretary had submitted his reply. However, thereafter the enquiry as is contemplated in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 was never under taken. He submits that neither were the requirements as have been enumerated in the Full Bench decision of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2010 2 UPLBEC 947, observed nor any law which governs an enquiry were stuck to. IV. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that if a certain complainant was summoned by the enquiry officer then the petitioner should have also been allowed to cross examine him and unless he was put to cross examination his statement could not have been believed. He submits that this is what has also been stated in : Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan V. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2013 AIR(SC) 58 Learned counsel read out paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of this judgement and so they are being reproduced here as under: "23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, 1961 AIR(SC) 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, 1957 AIR(SC) 882; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, 1963 AIR(SC) 1719; M/s Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar & Ors, 1964 AIR(SC) 708; New India Assurance Company Ltd . v . Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr., 2008 AIR(SC) 876; Rachpal Singh & Ors. v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., 2009 AIR(SC) 2448; Biecco Lawrie & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2010 AIR(SC) 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 AIR(SC) 3131). 24. In Lkashman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 2005 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of accounts, and that excise duty had been paid. The Court held that such a request could not be turned down, as the denial of the right to cross-examine, would amount to a denial of the right to be heard i.e. audi alteram partem. 25. In New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr., 2008 AIR(SC) 876; this Court considered a case under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and held as follows :- "If some facts are to be proved by the landlord, indisputably the occupant should get an opportunity to cross-examine. The witness who intends to prove the said fact has the right to cross-examine the witness. This may not be provided by under the statute, but it being a part of the principle of natural justice should be held to be indefeasible right." In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the right of cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice." V. The place and date for the enquiry was also not fixed, depriving the petitioner the opportunity to produce his witnesses.;