Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58770 of 2008
Petitioner :- Ram Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukhtar Alam,Satyaveer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.P.S.Kashyap
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
An ex-parte fact finding enquiry was undertaken by the respondents and thereafter a first information report was lodged which resulted in the suspension of the petitioner's licence to run the fair price shop on 15.5.2017. The petitioner's licence thereafter was also cancelled on 29.6.2007. The appeal which was filed was also dismissed on 10.10.2008. Hence the instant writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fair price shop could not either be suspended or cancelled on the basis of the first information report which was lodged under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In this regard he placed before the Court the judgment in Raj Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011(3) ADJ 638. He further submitted that some kind of enquiry should have been undergone and the ex-parte fact finding report should not have been relied upon before cancelling the licence to run the fair price shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the provisions of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and the mandates of the Full Bench decision of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 947 should have been followed. Further it has been submitted that after a trial in the criminal case in which the petitioner was implicated, he had been been exonerated on 2.3.2016 and therefore, the only ground which was available to the respondents was also now not there.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that since the petitioner was involved in gross irregularities, there was no other option but to cancel his licence.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the cancellation order was based only on the fact that a first information report was lodged under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the impugned orders could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Further, I am of the view that since the very ground on the basis of which the cancellation order was passed i.e. the lodging of the first information report itself was now not available, in view of the fact that the petitioner had been exonerated in the criminal trial, the impugned orders must go.
Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dasted 29.6.2017 and 10.10.2008 are quashed. The shop of the petitioner should be restored within ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 8.11.2017 Ashish Pd.