1

Reserved on – 26.8.2021

Delivered on – 9.9.2021

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54809 of 2017

Petitioner :- Shahid Nabi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

Srivastava,Subhash Chandra Pandey

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1.

The facts in brief of the present writ petition are that the

petitioner was running a fair price shop under an agreement

executed in terms of Government Order 2004. Certain complaints

were made against the petitioner of committing irregularities. The

Sub Divisional Officer, Rampur conducted an inquiry and

suspended the agreement of petitioner's fair price shop by an order

dated 9.5.2017 and sought reply of the petitioner on the

allegations. The petitioner filed a reply to the allegations along

with certain affidavits in support of his case that false complaints

were made against him and no irregularities were committed by

petitioner. The S.D.M. concerned, after considering the material

on record, by an order dated 25.7.2017, cancelled the agreement

of petitioner regarding fair price shop on the ground of supply of

less then prescribed quantity, supply was not on monthly basis and

that distribution was not conducted regularly, therefore,

irregularities were considered to be serious in nature.

2.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the

Commissioner, who after considering the material and

submissions, rejected the said appeal on the ground that there was

no evidence in support of submission that no irregularities were

WRIT - C No. - 54809 of 2017

2

committed by petitioner and that only due to political reasons, the

proceedings were initiated against him.

3.

In above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this

Court challenging both the above referred orders. Counter and

rejoinder affidavits were exchanged and written submission filed

on behalf of learned counsel for parties were also taken on record.

4.

Shri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for petitioner has

challenged the impugned orders on the ground that principles of

natural justice were not followed. The show cause notice was

defective, the Inquiry report was not supplied, the impugned

orders were passed on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and

were not supported by adequate evidences.

5.

The above submissions were opposed by Smt. Archana Tyagi,

learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who submitted that

petitioner was appointed to run a fair price shop under the Control

Order as an agent of the State Government and he has to abide the

agreement signed between the parties. The allotment of fair price

shop required certain obligations duties and responsibilities which

includes sale of food grain as per entitlement of Rashan Card. The

said information was to put on notice board for maintenance of

record of Rashan Card holders. It is also provided that the

Competent Authority shall take prompt action if any objection or

the irregularities are committed by the fair price shop owner. The

counsel also placed certain provisions of Control Order, 2016. the

Clause-7 of Control Order, 2016 provides that a person appointed

to run a fair price shop shall act as an agent of the State

Government. He has to sign an agreement regarding running of

the fair price shop in such manner as directed by the State

WRIT - C No. - 54809 of 2017

3

Government. According to Clause-8(7) of the Control Order, 2016

the Competent Authority defined under Clause2(j) is empowered

to take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of

license, including any irregularities committed by the fair price

shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the

fair price shop owner's license.

6.

Learned counsel for State has also relied upon a judgment

passed by this Court in Smt. Meena Devi vs. State of U.P.; 2018

(10) ADJ 385 and Sheo Bhan Singh vs. St