IMPORTANT POINT
The cancellation of a fair price shop licence without granting a personal hearing violates the principle of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no. 1 to 3 and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur whereby he has cancelled the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow wherein the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been dismissed.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed fair price shop licensee for Village Panchayat Kanduwapur, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur. It has also been stated that there was no complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner is running fair price shop for several years. Subsequently certain complaints were made against the petitioner levelling allegations regarding not giving the quantity of food-grains to which the villagers were entitled and also charging more than was due to be paid as consideration for the said goods.

4. On receipt of the complaints against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Supply Inspector, Mishrikh, Sitapur. On the basis of the report submitted in this regard, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was suspended by means of order dated 07.04.2017. In the said suspension order, a copy of the allegations/charge sheet was also given to the petitioner. During the said inquiry, number of card holders had given the statements in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner had duly responded to the charge sheet. By means of the reply submitted on 20.04.2017, and on receipt of the response, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur, duly considered the reply of the petitioner and relied upon the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and also considered that in the allegations levelled against the petitioner it was found that instead of 5 kg per unit only 4.5 kg of food-grains were being disbursed and even the sugar was sold for Rs.30/-and only 800 gm was disbursed and similarly he found that the allegations levelled with regard to the kerosene oil was found proved against the petitioner.

5. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh proceeded to cancel the fair price shop licence. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of cancellation dated 28.03.2018 preferred an appeal before Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The appellate authority also considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and found that there were serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, which were found proved during the said inquiry and considering that the allegations levelled was serious, had rejected the said appeal.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of said fair price shop licence and also submitted that the evidence was in-fact adduced by her which were not adequately considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh and accordingly, prayed for interference by this Court in the present writ petition.

7. The writ petition has been opposed by the learned Standing Counsel. He submits that full opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and it is only after receiving the reply of the petitioner the impugned order of cancellation was passed. He further submits that all aspects of the matter has been duly considered by both the authorities and there is no infirmity in the same and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing both the impugned orders has submitted that in the reply submitted by the petitioner on 20.0