Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K.S. Chauhan, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Village Panchayat.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed on 24.10.2016, praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.10.2016, passed by the respondent no.2 suspending the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner for village panchayat Patera Khurd, Block Bishanpur, Tehsil Padaruna, District Kushinagar. Submissions
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a handicapped person belonging to Scheduled Caste. His name was proposed in the open meeting of the Village Panchayat dated 11.4.2016 for appointment as fair price shop agent of village panchayat Patera Khurd and after completion of necessary formalities selection of the petitioner was made as fair price shop licencee by the resolution of the Tehsil Level Selection Committee dated 2.6.2016. Thereafter, respondent no.2 passed the order dated 10.6.2016 appointing the petitioner as fair price shop agent. Fair price shop agreement was executed on 30.6.2016. Immediately after grant of licence, certain persons of the village in collusion with the officers of the supply department particularly the respondent no.4 started harassing the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.9.2016 before the Commissioner Gorakhpur, Division Gorakhpur bringing to his notice detail facts including the incident of beating to him by the respondent no.4 and his muscles men. He also demanded for inquiry on the points raised in his application. An endorsement on the aforesaid application of the petitioner was made by the Divisional Commissioner on 12.9.2016 marking it as "important" and the District Magistrate was directed to inquire immediately into the matter and take appropriate effective action. The District Magistrate remitted the said application on the same day to the respondent no.2 (S.D.M.). Annoyed with the said application of the petitioner, the respondent no.4 obtained an alleged complaint dated 6.10.2016, against the petitioner which was presented on the same day before the respondent no.2, who ordered for inquiry and report. The respondent no.4 neither made any inquiry nor any card holders actually gave any statement indicating any illegality committed by the petitioner and yet on the very next day i.e. on 7.10.2016 the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner was suspended mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not distributed food grains in the month of October, 2016 and has distributed lesser quantity in the earlier month. The aforesaid order was passed arbitrarily and in breach of procedure provided by Government order No.2260/29-6-2004-300 Sa/03, dated 29.7.2004, issued by the Food and Supply Department. He submits that the respondent nos.2 and 4 have not only manipulated the records but also made every efforts in a calculated manner in collusion with their own men so as to harass and harm the petitioner and cancel his fair price shop agreement. He submits that the first lifting of the essential commodities for distribution to card holders was permitted by the State respondents only in the month of July 2016. The petitioner moved an application dated 30.8.2016, before the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, who directed the respondent no.2 as well as the concerned officer of the supply department to inquire into the matter and take appropriate action. However, nothing was done. In the said application dated 30.8.2016, the petitioner made clear allegation of his harassment by the officers of the supply department, in not allowing the essential commodities to be lifted in time for distribution. He submits that the petitioner being a physically handicapped person of scheduled caste has been targeted and implicated by the officers/employees of the supply department due to non fulfilment of their illegal demands. He submits that the entire action of the State respondents is arbitrary, illegal and malicious and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.;