IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established that a summary inquiry for the cancellation of a fair price shop license does not require the supply of the inquiry report to the licensee or a detailed hearing, and that the cancellation decision should be based on valid grounds after due consideration of the inquiry report and the licensee's reply.

JUDGMENT :

1. Personal affidavit of Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies, Lucknow dated 19.02.2024 filed today in Court by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel be kept on record.

2. Personal affidavit was required by this Court in terms of the order dated 16.01.2024 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-

"1. Heard.

2. In pursuance to the orders dated 14.02.2023 and 23.02.2023, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 02.03.2023. By placing reliance on the said affidavit, the contention of learned Standing counsel is that the District Magistrate, on an application moved by the petitioner, passed an order dated 06.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure SCA-1 to the said affidavit, per which the Additional District Magistrate was required to examine the explanation of the petitioner and submit a report.

3. In pursuance thereof, the Additional District Magistrate examined the explanation of the petitioner in presence of the Naib Tehsildar, Salon and five other officers and in respect of which an order dated 18.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure SCA-2 to the said affidavit, was also passed.

4. It is contended that the inquiry report was not submitted by the six officers along with the Additional District Magistrate rather the Additional District Magistrate required the other six officers only for the purpose of helping out in the inquiry for examining the statements and not that the inquiry was conducted by the other six officials and hence, the report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate does not bear the signatures of the other six officials who helped out in the said inquiry.

5. Considering the aforesaid, the explanation is found satisfactory by this Court of the inquiry report only bearing the signatures of the Additional District Magistrate.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though from the inquiry report dated 21.05.2022, the shortage of supply of ration vis-a-vis the N.I.S. report and also from the statements of ration card holders, it emerged that less ration has been supplied to the ration card holders, yet in the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of The Essential Commodities Act wherein final report has been submitted on 25.01.2022, a copy of which is annexure-15 to the petition (page 112), per which the Investigating Officer has indicated about the suspicious conduct of the Lekpal Shri Ram Sumer Maurya and Shri Vivek Kumar, Supply Inspector and also indicated that all the witnesses have resiled from their statements that have been given earlier to the authorities, and as such, no case under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is found against the petitioner. He further contends that the said report was approved by the District Magistrate, Raebareli.

7. The argument is that when the police in the final report has specifically concluded that no case is made out against the petitioner of giving supply of lesser food grains to the ration card holders, consequently no cognizance can be given to the inquiry report which has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner and in which the witnesses have indicated of lesser supply of food grains / ration by the petitioner.

8. Responding to that, the contention of learned Standing counsel, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit are (a) that the Investigating Officer never visited the Gram Panchayat and never verified the stock of fair price license holder and also never recorded the statements of card holders and (b) that the District Magistrate has taken cognizance of the report of the Investigating Officer wherein the approval of the District Magistrate has been alleged to have been accorded by indicating that it is only the District Magistrate himself who is to accord the approval and no other officer and thus, the approval appears to be fake and not genuine. Specific averment to the said effect has been made in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit dated