Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.10.2013 passed by respondent No.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal Division Sambhal cancelling the fair price shop of the petitioner and the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division Moradabad rejecting her appeal.
(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the on the spot inspection held after complaints being received from the villagers by the Supply Inspector of the village concerned on 18.05.2013, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.07.2013 and her fair price shop licence was suspended. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 21.09.2013 along with relevant documentary evidence i.e. Distribution Certificate given by the Gram Pradhan each month and also the Stock and Sale Registers for the past three months. The petitioner also submitted affidavits of some of the complainants that they were satisfied with the distribution of the Scheduled Commodities by the petitioner and they had no grievance against the petitioner. However, the Licensing Authority without going through the affidavits has given a finding that such affidavits filed in support of the case of the petitioner of regular distribution were false or forged and has come to the conclusion that the explanation that was submitted by the petitioner is false and has cancelled the licence. The petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal and he took the ground that the affidavits of complainants were not examined and the order has been passed without conducting any inquiry. However, the Appellate Authority has rejected the Appeal of the petitioner summarily.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraphs 49 and 50 of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Pooran Singh vs State of UP and others, 2010 3 ADJ 659 of the aforesaid judgment, which has been placed before this Court para 49 and 50 are being quoted herein-below: "(49) In view of the aforesaid it is clear that in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 there is no contemplation of any notice and opportunity before suspending the fair price shop rather there is a clear stipulation that the authority can pass the order of suspension at the time of surprise inspection and otherwise also if complaint of serious irregularity is received. Opportunity will be required only before order of cancellation. This is also clearly provided in the Distribution Order 2004 the provisions of which has an overriding effect on the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. In terms of the Distribution Order of 2004 parties are to sign draft/agreement with a clear stipulation of the power of the authority to pass the order of suspension. (50) On the basis of the above analysts we answer both the questions so referred as below: (i) Before suspension of fair price agreement it is not mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing and thus on the plea of its violation the order of suspension is not liable to be set aside. (ii) Division Bench judgments in Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 10 ADJ 610 (DB) and Harpal v. State of U.P. and another, 2008 3 ADJ 36 (DB) holding that opportunity is must does not lay down the correct law. Division Bench judgment in the case of Gopi v. State, 2007 6 ADJ 231 (DB) lays down the correct law that grant of opportunity is not necessary. After the answer of the questions so posed let writ petitions be listed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders. Office is to list writ petitions before the appropriate Court/Bench on 15.4.2010.";