JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri A. Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 31.7.2008 by which the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that there were two criminal cases pending against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No. 183 of 2008, under Sections 452/323, 504, 506 IPC and one Non-Cognizable Report (for short 'NCR') No. 98 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC.

3. Initially writ petition was entertained by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.8.2008 and this Court while noticing the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences that were though criminal in nature but were petty offences and should not have formed the basis of cancellation of fair price shop license, stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order 31.7.2008.

4. Pursuant to the above interim order dated 21.8.2008 petitioner has been running the fair price shop till today.

5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is having a fair price shop license validly granted by the authorities, was issued with a show-cause notice dated 2.7.2008 served upon the petitioner on 17.7.2008 calling upon him to explain as to why the fair price shop license may not be cancelled on the ground that there were criminal cases registered against the petitioner. The emphasis was laid on clause 10 of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 in which vide Clause (d) it is provided that the fair price shop license shall be given to a person against whom there should not be any criminal case registered.

6. It is in this above factual background that the petitioner's fair price shop license was suspended also vide order dated 2.7.2008 and reply/explanation was sought from the petitioner. In compliance of the notice issued, as above, to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply in which vide paragraph No. 5 he brought to the notice of the authorities that in connection with Case Crime No. 183 of 2008, under Sections 452/323, 504, 506 IPC, he had already filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2008 in which interim order had been passed and which was already supplied to the police station concerned. He, therefore, submitted that unless and until he was declared guilty of the offences, he cannot be taken as convict and no penal action, therefore, should be taken against the petitioner.

7. In so far as the NCR is concerned, it was brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the same reply that no further investigation had been conducted in connection with NCR No. 98 of 2007 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and therefore, it could not be taken as a ground to cancel the license of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that in respect of the distribution of scheduled commodities and running of fair price shop, there was no complaint against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not be held guilty of any violation of terms of agreement or contract pursuant to which he was running the fair price shop. Thus, it was pleaded that there was no occasion to cancel the fair price shop license of the petitioner.

8. Having considered the reply of the petitioner, the authority has simply referred three facts that vide order dated 2.8.2008 the fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended and he was required to submit explanation within a week; and that the notice was also published in news daily 'Amar Ujala' on 4.7.2008; the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 18.7.2008 which was duly examined but the answer was not found satisfactory; and therefore, in public interest, the fair price shop license of the petitioner was being cancelled.

9. That argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold: firstly, the fair