Violation of natural justice and non-consideration of legal and factual aspects led to the quashing of the fair price shop agreement cancellation orders.

Ran Vijai Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh-I, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 9.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad in Appeal No. C 20141300001065 (Chhatar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and orders dated 14.7.2014 and 24.7.2014 including show cause notice dated 23.6.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha.

3. Vide order dated 14.7.2014, the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop was suspended pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.6.2014, vide order dated 24.7.2014, the petitioner's agreement to run fair price shop was cancelled whereas by the subsequent order dated 9.1.2015 appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation dated 24.7.2014 has been dismissed.

4. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent for distribution of scheduled commodities to the cardholders of village Jabdi, Block and Tehsil Amroha. While working as such, certain complaints were made against the petitioner by Sri Vipin Singh son of Kamal Singh, Sharif son of Rafiq and many other residents of village Jabdi, Tehsil Amorha. The complaints were made on 17.6.2014 on the eve of Tehsil Diwas. On the receipt of the aforesaid complaints, the Supply Inspector Amroha was directed to make an inquiry in this regard who had inquired about the matter and found certain irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities. Taking note of that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.6.2014 containing charges regarding charging of higher price from APL, BPL cardholders, non-distribution of scheduled commodities regularly to the APL cardholders, non-distribution of the kerosene oil in accordance with the norms and standard, detaining the cards of the cardholders. The petitioner submitted his reply but the Sub-Divisional Officer found that reply submitted by the petitioner is dissatisfactory, consequently he suspended the agreement of the petitioner and required fresh explanation vide order dated 14.7.2014. The petitioner has again submitted his reply and the Sub-Divisional Officer, being dissatisfied, with the reply has cancelled the agreement of the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved petitioner has filed appeal against the order of cancellation dated 24.7.2014 and the appellate authority too has dismissed the appeal without addressing himself on the grounds taken in the appeal and without addressing on the points involved in the case.

6. While assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, while cancelling the agreement, has mentioned the charges and the petitioner's reply in brief ignoring the relevant part of the reply and without discussing anything in detail, cancelled the agreement without recording any finding regarding proving of each and every charge levelled against the petitioner and the appellate authority too has not at all discussed the case of the petitioner.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner, herein, has filed present writ petition in which on 9.2.2015, learned Standing Counsel was directed to file counter affidavit. Pursuant thereto, counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents and the petitioner, in response thereto, has filed rejoinder affidavit. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

8. In paragraphs 9,13 and 14 of the writ petition, following averments have been made : -

9. That although in the show cause notice it was mention that on the complaint of the village an inquiry was conducted but no such inquiry report was given to the petitioner either with the show cause notice dated 23.6.2014.

13. That the order of canc