Deficiencies in the show cause notice and lack of specific violations proved against the petitioner led to the quashing of the orders and restoration of the fair price shop license.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. List has been revised. Matter is very old. No counsel for the contesting respondent has appeared. The illness slip sent by learned counsel for the subsequent allottee is being ignored as it is the settled law that the subsequent allottee is not an aggrieved person in the context of proceedings against the original fair price licensee/agent.

3. By means of the present petition, challenge has been raised to the order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the licensing authority cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop license and the suspension notice dated 01.02.2007.

4. Insofar as the suspension notice dated 01.02.2007 is concerned, no challenge may be entertained in the present proceedings as that suspension was made subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.7306 of 2007. The writ petition was entertained and the below quoted interim order was passed therein :

"As an interim measure it is provided that the operation of the impugned order dated 1.2.2007 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed."

5. However, it is a fact that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2010 which reads as below :

"None appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the repeated calls.

Heard Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, and Sri V.K. Chandel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State and the contesting respondent both have contended before this Court that under paragraph-28 of the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 there is a provision of appeal. The petitioner filed the writ petition and obtained an interim order from this Court and simultaneously an appeal had been filed, which was subsequent withdrawn. According to us, since there is a clear provision of appeal, there is neither any question of continuing with the matter with interim order or withdrawing the appeal. If the petitioner is entitled to have any order, he can proceed with the appeal, if so advised, to have hearing on merits as early as possible. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

6. A recall application filed to recall the aforesaid order was also dismissed, as infructuous on 12.05.2014, in view of the facts noted in the order dated 12.05.2014. It reads as below :

"Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the subsequent events this application has become infructuous.

The application is dismissed as infructuous."

7. In view of the above, no challenge may arise to the suspension order dated 01.02.2007. No leave was granted to the petitioner to challenge that suspension order by means of the fresh writ petition.

8. Insofar as the order dated 05.04.2010 and the further appeal order dated 12.04.2012 are concerned, it is seen while giving effect to the interim order dated 15.02.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.7306 of 2007, the fair price shop license of the petitioner had been restored. It was however again suspended on 16 June 2007. Against that, the petitioner filed an appeal. It came to be allowed vide order dated 31.10.2007.

9. Upon dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition no.7306 of 2007, a fresh chargesheet was issued to the petitioner dated 18.03.2010. Bare perusal of the same reveals that the following charges were levelled :

"1. Carddharko ke sath durvyavahar kia jata hai.

2. Antyoday yojana ke carddharko ko 35 kilo khadhyan 120/- rupai mai dia jata hai.

3. BPL carddharko ke khadyan nahi dia jata hai.

4. Chini ka vitran nahi kia jata hai."

10. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said chargesheet is wholly vague and incapable of any reply, inasmuch as, besides making vague allegations, no