SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) As the writ petition raises a pure question of law as to whether a licence to run a fair price shop could be cancelled simply because the fair price shop dealer did not submit his reply to the show cause notice, the learned Standing Counsel stated that he would not file any counter affidavit and would address only on the question of law as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) After the petitioner's father died on 5.1.2015, the fair price shop which he was running was, under the relevant rules, allotted to the petitioner on 16.4.2015. Certain complaints were made against the allotment which were to the effect that the petitioner's father had, in fact, died issueless and, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for the allotment.
(3.) After certain enquiries, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.12.2016 and, thereafter, as the petitioner could not file his reply, the allotment in his favour was cancelled on 6.4.2017. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition and has made the following submissions:- I. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner could have been cancelled on the basis of an ex parte report submitted by the Supply Inspector on 20.11.2016. II. Notices as were issued for the filing of the reply never reached the petitioner. III. In view of the fact that no reply was submitted to the show cause notice, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner could cancelled. IV. Even though, the petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice dates should have been fixed for examining the witnesses of the complaints. V. He has submitted that even, in case, where evidence is closed and a case is directed to proceed ex parte the defendant/opposite party gets a right to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs/complainants. He has cited AIR 1964 SC 993 : (Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Others) and has stated that even if a defendant's, application under Order 9Rule 7 of the C.P.C. is rejected it gives him a right to proceed from where proceedings were ordered to proceed ex parte converting an ex parte hearing into a bi parte one. VI. He has also referred to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and has submitted that the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 162 : (Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo) has held that the non-filing of a written statement does mean that the plaintiff's suit had to be decreed as a matter of course. It has been held therein that the defendant had all the right to cross examine the plaintiffs and his witnesses. Further, he has stated that the Supreme Court has held that the Court had to, after looking into the evidence of the plaintiffs and the cross examination done by the defendants of the plaintiffs witnesses come to a definite conclusion after framing issues as to what exactly had to be done with the Suit. VII. Any statement which might have been taken during the preliminary enquiry after which the show cause was issued could have been used against the petitioner as they were all taken behind the back of the petitioner. To buttress his submission learned counsel relied on AIR 1993 (3) SCC 259 : (D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.) VIII. The petitioner's counsel relying on the Full Bench decision of Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (3) ADJ 659 submits that the Government Order dated 29.7.2004, by which enquiries are made, clearly envisages a full fledged enquiry pursuant to a show cause notice and it does contemplate a cancellation of an allotment order simply because the reply had been given.;