# Ray Sahab v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1015
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-19
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 8449 of 2022
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ray-sahab-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51402
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Essential Commodities
(Regulation
of
Sale
and
Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 - Clause 8(7) -
Essential
Commodities
Act,
1955
-
Sections 3/7 - Cancellation of Fair Price Shop
License - Summary Inquiry - Principles of
Natural Justice - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226
The petitioner, Ray Sahab, challenged the
cancellation of his fair price shop license for
Village Panchayat Bishaiya, Raebareli, vide order
dated 24.05.2022, upheld by the appellate
authority on 19.11.2022, alleging procedural
irregularities and violation of natural justice. A
complaint on 03.09.2020 led to an inquiry
revealing short supply of food grains to ration
card
holders,
resulting
in
the
license's
suspension on 10.09.2020 and an FIR under
Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Despite a final police report on 25.01.2022
finding no case, which was allegedly approved
by the District Magistrate, multiple inquiries
confirmed irregularities, leading to the license's
cancellation. The petitioner argued: (1) the
appellate authority decided without hearing him,
(2) the inquiry report was not provided, (3) the
police report cleared him, (4) the inquiry
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committee was improperly constituted, (5)
complainants' St.ments were inconsistent, and
(6) the procedure under the Government Order
dated 05.08.2019 was not followe Held: The
inquiry under Clause 8(7) of the 2016 Control
Order is summary, requiring only a show-cause
notice, opportunity to respond, and a reasoned
order, as per Shankar Prasad Vs St. of U.P. (Mis
Single No. 32679 of 2019). There is no mandate
for supplying the inquiry report or allowing
cross-examination, as confirmed in Radhey
Shyam Vs St. of U.P. (Writ-C No. 22891 of
2019).
The
appellate
authority's
decision
without the petitioner's presence was justified
due to his absence despite notice, and no
adjournment was sought. The police report's
pendency due to a protest petition negated its
relevance. The inquiry committee's composition
was clarified as valid, with the Additional District
Magistrate solely responsible for the report. The
inquiry
report,
based
on
32
witnesses,
consistently showed short supply and misuse of
the e-pass machine, justifying cancellation. The
2019 Government Order was adhered to,
requiring
no
detailed
inquiry.
The
cited
judgments (Amar Nath, Amodnath Mishra,
Manoj
Kumar
Pathak)
were
either
distinguishable or superseded by Shankar Prasa
The writ petition was dismissed, finding no legal
infirmity in the impugned orders.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,833 of 51,904. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39833 for what follows._

2 All. Ray Sahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1015
circumstances noticed hereinabove which
is not the case here. In a case such as the
one at hand where the complainant had
sought impleadment as an opposite party in
writ proceedings, it is the concept of
necessary and proper party which would have
to be considered. This aspect was not involved
nor considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the
case of Amin Khan (supra). We have held that
a complainant would not be a necessary party in
a writ petition or an appeal arising therefrom
unless any relief has been sought against him
but for the reasons already given by us, the writ
court in its discretion can order the complainant
to be impleaded as a proper party or hear him as
an intervener which does not by itself make him
a party to the lis but as already stated his
presence is there for the assistance of the court
that too on the satisfaction of the court and not
as a matter of right. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that what has been held by us
hereinabove does not in essence contradict what
has been held in Amin Khan's case (supra).
We have merely clarified the matter in the
context of a proper party (opposite party) in a
writ proceedings. Therefore, we see no reason
as to why we should refer the judgment in the
case of Amin Khan (supra) for reconsideration
by a larger Bench. This is especially as we have
not expressed any opinion on the question as to
whether after a final order of removal has been
passed by the District Magistrate after a regular
enquiry, the complainant would have any locus
standi or not and have also not expressed
any opinion as to whether special appeal
would be maintainable at the behest of a
complainant against judgment of a writ
court which was the question involved in
Amin Khan's case (supra)

51)

We
answer
question
no.2
accordingly.

52) The writ petition shall now be listed
before the writ court on 06.03.2024 along with
our answers to the questions referred
hereinabove.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1015
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ - C No. 8449 of 2022

Ray Sahab ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Shukla, Satish Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anurag Srivastava, Manoj Kumar
Rai

Civil Law - U.P. Essential Commodities
(Regulation
of
Sale
and
Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 - Clause 8(7) -
Essential
Commodities
Act,
1955
-
Sections 3/7 - Cancellation of Fair Price Shop
License - Summary Inquiry - Principles of
Natural Justice - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226
The petitioner, Ray Sahab, challenged the
cancellation of his fair price shop license for
Village Panchayat Bishaiya, Raebareli, vide order
dated 24.05.2022, upheld by the appellate
authority on 19.11.2022, alleging procedural
irregularities and violation of natural justice. A
complaint on 03.09.2020 led to an inquiry
revealing short supply of food grains to ration
card
holders,
resulting
in
the
license's
suspension on 10.09.2020 and an FIR under
Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Despite a final police report on 25.01.2022
finding no case, which was allegedly approved
by the District Magistrate, multiple inquiries
confirmed irregularities, leading to the license's
cancellation. The petitioner argued: (1) the
appellate authority decided without hearing him,
(2) the inquiry report was not provided, (3) the
police report cleared him, (4) the inquiry
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committee was improperly constituted, (5)
complainants' St.ments were inconsistent, and
(6) the procedure under the Government Order
dated 05.08.2019 was not followe Held: The
inquiry under Clause 8(7) of the 2016 Control
Order is summary, requiring only a show-cause
notice, opportunity to respond, and a reasoned
order, as per Shankar Prasad Vs St. of U.P. (Mis
Single No. 32679 of 2019). There is no mandate
for supplying the inquiry report or allowing
cross-examination, as confirmed in Radhey
Shyam Vs St. of U.P. (Writ-C No. 22891 of
2019).
The
appellate
authority's
decision
without the petitioner's presence was justified
due to his absence despite notice, and no
adjournment was sought. The police report's
pendency due to a protest petition negated its
relevance. The inquiry committee's composition
was clarified as valid, with the Additional District
Magistrate solely responsible for the report. The
inquiry
report,
based
on
32
witnesses,
consistently showed short supply and misuse of
the e-pass machine, justifying cancellation. The
2019 Government Order was adhered to,
requiring
no
detailed
inquiry.
The
cited
judgments (Amar Nath, Amodnath Mishra,
Manoj
Kumar
Pathak)
were
either
distinguishable or superseded by Shankar Prasa
The writ petition was dismissed, finding no legal
infirmity in the impugned orders.

Case Law Cited:

1. Shankar Prasad Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Mis
Single
No.
32679
of
2019,
decided
on
08.12.2021

2. Radhey Shyam Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C
No. 22891 of 2019, decided on 16.02.2022

3. Amar Nath Vs Commissioner, Lucknow
Division & ors., Writ-C No. 1001443 of 2007,
decided on 19.12.2022

4. Amodnath Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C
No. 3407 of 2022, decided on 30.11.2023

5. Manoj Kumar Pathak Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Mis
Single No. 3739 of 2012, decided on 11.11.2014

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

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
2 All. Ray Sahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
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
25.01.2023.

9. From perusal of the aforesaid
facts, it is prima facie apparent that it is
only the ration card holders who have not
been supplied the full ration to which they
are entitled to, as emerges from the inquiry
report dated 21.05.2022, who are the
ultimate sufferers and who would fall
within the ambit of being "collateral
damage" in the entire episode that has
occurred. The ultimate beneficiary in the
entire episode, prima facie, appear to be
the fair price shop license holder, the
Lekpal Shri Ram Sumer Maurya, the
Supply Inspector Shri Vivek Kumar and the
Investigating Officer who submitted his
report dated 25.01.2022.
 10. The Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot shut its eyes to
the aforesaid sorry state of affairs which,
prima facie, emerge from the perusal of
record. The Court is also conscious and
aware that the District Magistrate has
himself indicated that the approval of the
report of the Investigating Officer is only to
be accorded by the District Magistrate
himself and no other officer and as such the
approval appears to be fake, yet the further
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
action that may have been taken on the
basis of the said averments, as contained in
the counter affidavit filed way back on
25.01.2023 i.e. almost a year back, has still
not been indicated.

11. Considering the aforesaid, the
Court requires the Principal Secretary,
Food & Civil Supplies, Civil Secretariat,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow i.e. respondent
No.1 to file his personal affidavit in the
matter addressing all the aforesaid issues
and indicating the action which has been
taken / is proposed to be taken against the
guilty officials in the entire episode and,
thus, to ensure that at least the ration card
holders get the due amount of food grains
to which they are entitled to and the same
is not defeated at the behest of either the
fair price shop license holder or the other
officials who are required to ensure that
due food grains are received by the ration
card holders.

12. Let the personal affidavit be
filed within four weeks.

13. List this case for further
hearing on 19.02.2024 at 02:15 P.M.

14. Interim order, if any, shall
continue till the next date of listing."

3. Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel
for the petitioner states that he does not
intend to file any reply to the same.

4. From a perusal of the aforesaid
order dated 16.01.2024, it emerges that the
contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner was that when the police in the
final report has concluded that no case is
made out against the petitioner of giving
lesser supply of food grains to the ration card
holders consequently, no cognizance can be
given to the inquiry report dated 21.05.2022
which enquiry has been conducted behind the
back of the petitioner and that despite the
inquiry report having indicated the connivance
of
the
lekhpal,
the
Supply
Inspector
Investigating Officer, no action has been taken
against them.

5. In the supplementary counter affidavit
filed today, a specific averment has been made
in paragraph 23 that the then Investigating
Officer, Sri Praveen Gautam and the then
Judicial Assistant, Sri Balaji Vidayarthi have
been prima facie found guilty and a preliminary
departmental inquiry has been directed to be
conducted against Sri Praveen Gautam. As Sri
Balaji Vidayarthi has retired as such, a letter
dated 02.02.2024 has been sent to Secretary,
Government of U.P for according sanction to
initiate departmental proceedings against him as
per CSR 351-A.

6. So far as the final report is concerned, it
has been specifically averred in paragraph 21 of
the affidavit that against the said report, a
protest has been filed by the Supply Inspector
before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I, Raibareilly on 05.12.2023 which
is pending before the competent Court.

7. So far as distribution of food grains is
concerned, it is contended that the same are
being distributed by the shop with which the
card holders have been attached.

8. Considering the aforesaid personal
affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Food and
Supply it is apparent that the action has been
taken in pursuance to the order of this Court
dated 16.01.2024 which action is found
satisfactory.

9. As the pleadings are completed
accordingly the Court proceeds to hear and
decide the matter finally.

10. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief
2 All. Ray Sahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1019
Standing counsel appearing on behalf of
the State-respondents.

11. Instant writ petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature or certiorari thereby quashing
the impugned order dated 19.11.2022
passed by opposite party no. 2, Joint
Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division,
Lucknow in Appeal No. 2576 of 2022, Ray
Sahab Singh Vs. State of U.P U/S 13 (3) of
Essential Commodities (Regulation of sale
and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 and
impugned order dated 24.05.2022 passed
by the Opposite Party No. 3, Upziladhikari,
Tehsil- Salon District Raibareily, contained
as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite party no. 3 to
permit the petitioner to run the fair price
shop of Village Panchayat Bishaiya, Block
& Tehsil Salon, District Raibareli during
pendency of the present writ petition before
this Hon'ble Court

12. The facts set forth by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that
the petitioner was having a license of the
fair price shop of Village Panchayat-
Bisaiya Block & Tehsil- Salon District-
Raibareilly and had been running the said
shop without any complaint since long. On
03.09.2020, a complaint was made against
the distribution of food grains by the
petitioner on the public hearing portal. An
inquiry was conducted by the Regional
Supply Inspector, Salon who submitted his
report on 07.09.2020. On the basis of the
said report, the license of the petitioner was
suspended vide order dated 10.09.2020, a
copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ
petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
filed an appeal and the learned appellate
authority vide order dated 05.12.2020, a
copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ
petition remanded back the matter to the
competent authority to pass a fresh order
after considering the explanation of the
petitioner.
In
pursuance
thereof,
the
petitioner submitted his explanation which
was examined by the inquiry committee
which submitted its report on 04.03.2021.
The petitioner preferred an application for
re-inquiry which was also directed and
after considering the explanation of the
petitioner, the license of the petitioner was
cancelled vide order dated 08.07.2021, a
copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ
petition.

13. The petitioner being aggrieved
with the order dated 08.07.2021 filed an
appeal. Vide order dated 31.08.2021, a
copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ
petition, the appeal was allowed and the
matter was remitted to the competent
authority to pass a fresh order.

14. In pursuance thereof, an inquiry
was again conducted and a report was
submitted
on
04.05.2022.
The
petitioner being dissatisfied with the
said inquiry requested for re-inquiry
and again the inquiry report dated
21.05.2022 was submitted, a copy of
which is part of annexure 12 to the
writ petition.

15. After considering the inquiry
report, the competent authority vide order
dated 24.05.2022, a copy of which is
annexure 2 to the writ petition cancelled the
license of the petitioner. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner filed an appeal which has
been rejected vide order dated 19.11.2022,
a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ
petition. Being aggrieved by both the
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders, the instant writ petition has been
filed.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has raised following arguments in order to
challenge the orders impugned namely (a)
the appellate authority has decided the
appeal without hearing the petitioner (b)
copy of the inquiry report has not been
supplied to the petitioner on the basis of
which the cancellation of license order
dated 24.05.2022 has been passed (c) when
the final report had been submitted by the
police in the case filed against the
petitioner under the provisions of Section
3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act
which was approved by the District
Magistrate, Raibareilly consequently, in the
summary proceedings against the petitioner
conducted by the respondents it could not
be said that the petitioner has not supplied
the food grains or has made lesser supply
of the food grains (d) the District
Magistrate had directed for formation of a
six member committee, as stands recorded
in the report dated 21.05.2022 (Page 87 &
88 of the writ petition) but the report has
been submitted only by one person i.e. the
Additional Magistrate as per annexure 12
of the writ petition (e) that there is
difference in the statements recorded of the
complainants & (f) the Government order
dated 05.08.2019 which has been issued
subsequent to the Control Order, 2016
gives
the
detailed
procedure
for
cancellation of the fair price shop license
has not been adhered to.

17. No other ground has been urged.

18. Elaborating his arguments, Sri
Shukla argues that when the appeal was
listed on 08.11.2022, the petitioner or his
counsel could not appear and the appellate
authority reserved the orders on the appeal
and thereafter dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner vide order dated 19.11.2022 and
as the said order has been passed without
hearing the petitioner the same would thus
render the order to be in gross violation of
the rules of natural justice and as such, the
appellate order merits to be quashed on this
ground alone.

19. The further argument is that the
inquiry report on the basis of which the
license of the petitioner has been cancelled,
was never supplied to him and thus the
order impugned merits to be set aside on
account of the report with which the
petitioner was never confronted with
having been relied upon while passing the
order impugned. Placing reliance on the
Government order dated 05.08.2019, a
copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ
petition , the contention is that the said
Government order contains a detailed
procedure for holding of an inquiry against
the license holder and as the petitioner was
never accorded an opportunity of cross
examining
the
complainants
whose
statements have been recorded neither the
inquiry report was supplied to him as such,
the order of cancellation of license of the
petitioner would run foul to the provisions
of rules of natural justice and accordingly,
merits be quashed on this ground.

20. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment of this Court in the cases of
Amar Nath Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow
Division and Ors passed in Writ-C No.
1001443 of 2007 decided on 19.12.2022,
Writ-C
No.
3407
of
2022
Inre:
Amodnath Mishra Vs. State of U.P and
ors decided on 30.11.2023 as well as a
judgment of this Court in the case of
Manoj Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P
and Ors passed in Misc. Single No. 3739
of 2012 decided on 11.11.2014.
2 All. Ray Sahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021

21. On the other hand, Sri Rahul
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
counsel
on
the
basis
of
averments
contained in the counter affidavit has
argued that an inquiry report had been
submitted by the Inquiry Officer wherein
the statements of the witnesses were
examined and the details given by the
petitioner regarding supply were also
examined as per the details available on the
public portal through the MIS report. All
the witnesses specifically indicated about
less supply of food grains having been
made
by
the
petitioner
despite
the
petitioner
having
taken
their
thumb
impression on the e-pass machine which
thus
prevailed
upon
the
competent
authority to cancel the license of the
petitioner. It is also contended that the
appeal was required to be decided in terms
of the directions issued by the writ Court
but as the appeal was not decided, a
contempt petition had also been filed
indicating that despite expiry of the time
prescribed by the writ Court, the appeal has
not been decided. It is also contended that
the appeal was listed on 18.11.2022 but
neither the petitioner nor his counsel were
present nor was there any request for
adjournment and accordingly, the appellate
authority, after considering the order
passed in the writ Court dated 06.09.2022
as well as a contempt petition having been
filed, reserved the orders on the appeal on
18.11.2022 and upon finding no merits in
the appeal, dismissed the appeal vide order
dated 19.11.2022.

22. The further argument of Sri
Shukla is that a perusal of the inquiry
report dated 21.05.2022 would indicate the
gross irregularities carried out by the
petitioner in supply of food grains to the
ration cards holder and he not having made
the complete supply rather has given lesser
supply to the ration card holders and based
on the said report, the competent authority
has cancelled the license of the petitioner.

23. Reliance has also been placed on
the Division Bench judgment of this Court
in the case of Shankar Prasad Vs. State of
U.P and Ors passed in Misc. Single No.
32679 of 2019 decided on 08.12.2021 on a
reference made by the learned Single Judge
of this Court noticing a cleavage of opinion
in various decisions to contend that the
Division Bench has categorically held that
the inquiry envisaged for cancellation of a
license in terms of a relevant Government
orders is only summary in nature and not a
detailed inquiry.

24. Placing reliance on the aforesaid
judgment, Sri Shukla argues that as the
charges against the petitioner have been
proved
after
a
summary
enquiry
consequently, there was no occasion to
either supply of the inquiry report or for
cross examination of the witnesses and as
such, the orders impugned have correctly
been passed in the eyes of law.

25. Heard the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the contesting
parties and having perused the records.

26. From a perusal of records it
emerges that the petitioner was having the
license of a fair price shop. Initially, the
license
of
the
petitioner
had
been
suspended on 10.09.2020. An FIR had also
been lodged against the petitioner under
Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities
Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal
aggrieved against the suspension order
which was allowed vide order dated
05.12.2020 and the matter had been
remitted to the competent authority to pass
a fresh order. After considering the
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
explanation of the petitioner and the
inquiry report, the license of the petitioner
was cancelled vide order dated 08.07.2021.
The appeal filed by the petitioner against
the said order was partly allowed vide order
dated 31.08.2021 and the matter was
remitted to the competent authority to pass
a fresh order. While remitting the matter to
the competent authority, the appellate
authority has specifically required the
competent authority to do two things
namely to consider the distribution made
by the petitioner as per the MIS report
available on the public portal along with
statements of the complainants and to pass
a reasoned and speaking order after
considering the same. Thus, the scope
before the Prescribed Authority to pass a
fresh order was only confined to the
directions as had been given by the
appellate authority vide its order dated
31.08.2021. Incidentally, the order dated
31.08.2021 has not been challenged by the
petitioner at any stage and as such, the
directions issued by the appellate authority
have attained finality.

27. Considering the order of the
appellate
authority
,
the
competent
authority called for an inquiry report which
was sent on 04.05.2022 against which the
petitioner submitted his objections which
occasioned another inquiry report to be
submitted
which
was
submitted
on
21.05.2022 by the Additional Magistrate,
Raibareilly. The said report specifically
indicates about the statements of the
witnesses being seen in the context of the
supply as per MIS report available on the
public portal from which the Inquiry
Officer specifically concluded of lesser
ration or in some cases no ration being
made available to quite a large number of
ration card holders. Incidentally, the report
also indicates about the statement of the
petitioner being recorded. The report also
concluded that the petitioner made the
ration card holders put their thumb on the
e-pass machine for the purpose of showing
the distribution but physically, lesser ration
was distributed to the ration card holders.
Based on the said report, the license of the
petitioner was cancelled vide order dated
24.05.2022 which order has been upheld
with the dismissal of the appeal vide order
dated 19.11.2022.

28. The grounds taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner while raising a
challenge to the orders impugned have
already been indicated above. Prior to
considering the grounds as raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner while
raising a challenge to the order impugned,
the Court may indicate the procedure which
is required to be followed for the purpose
of cancellation of a fair price shop license.

29. In this regard, it would be suffice
to refer to the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Shankar Prasad
(supra) wherein this Court after referring
to various Government orders that have
been issued in this regard including the
Uttar
Pradesh
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 has held as under:-

"47.
Thus,
we
answer
the
reference as under:-

(i) It is held that the parameters
for an enquiry to be conducted against the
licensee for the irregularities committed by
the licensee in terms of the Distribution of
Essential
Commodities
is
on
broad
principles of natural justice where the
competent authority shall provide a show
cause notice to the licensee indicating the
violations and irregularities committed by
the licensee with sufficient particularity to
2 All. Ray Sahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1023
enable him to respond to the same and
after affording an opportunity of hearing,
the decision can be taken by the competent
authority by a reasoned and a speaking
order. The enquiry envisaged is summary
in nature and does not entail a detailed
hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry;

(ii) It is held that the words "full
fledged enquiry" as used by the Full
Bench of this Court in the decision of
Puran Singh (supra) has to be read in
context with paras 4 and 5 of the
Government Order of July 2004 and the
scheme therein which merely requires
adherence to the principles of natural
justice and does not provide for a detailed
enquiry involving various stages and steps
as are required to be met in disciplinary
enquiry against a government servant."

30. From a perusal of the aforesaid
judgment it is apparent that the Division
Bench has categorically held that the
parameters for an inquiry to be conducted
against
the
license
holder
for
the
irregularities committed by the licensee is
on broad principles of natural justice where
a show cause Notice has to be issued to
enable the licensee to respond to the same
and after affording an opportunity of
hearing, the decision has to be taken by the
competent authority by a reasoned and
speaking order and that the inquiry
envisaged is summary in nature and does
not entail a detailed hearing akin to a
departmental inquiry.

31. The question which arises is as
what is a summary inquiry or summary
proceedings or an inquiry summary in
nature.

32. In this regard, it would be apt to
refer to the
definition
of summary
proceedings as given in the Black's Law
Dictionary, Ninth Edition which defines
summary proceeding as under:-

"Summary
Proceeding:-
A
nonjury
proceeding
that
settles
a
controversy or dispose of a case in a
relatively prompt and simple manner."

33. "Summary" has been defined in
the Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth
Edition as under:-

Summary:- 1. Short;concise <a
summary account of the events on March
6> 2. Without the usual formalities;esp.
without a jury<a summary trial>. 3.
Immediate; done without delay <the new
weapon was put to summary use by the
Military.

34. From a perusal of the meaning of
'summary' and 'summary proceeding' as per
the Black's Law Dictionary, it is apparent
that summary proceedings would be
proceedings without the usual formalities
i.e proceedings to be done without any
delay so as to settle a controversy or
dispose of a case in a relatively prompt and
simple manner and without the usual
formalities.

35. Armed with the meaning of
summary proceeding as per Black's Law
Dictionary and the summary procedure
required to be adopted as held by this Court
in the case of Shankar Prasad (supra) it is
apparent that there is no requirement while
cancelling the license of a fair price shop
holder to go in for a detailed inquiry i.e for
cross examination of the complainants or
the witnesses or for giving a copy of the
inquiry report to the licensee for in case
such a view is taken, the procedure
prescribed
would
no
longer
remain
summary and would be akin to a detailed
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry which is clearly not contemplated
under
the
Control
Order,
2016
as
interpreted and held by this Court in the
case of Shankar Prasad (supra) .

36. Subsequent to the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of
Shankar Prasad (supra) this aspect of the
matter has also been considered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of
Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P and Ors
passed in Writ-C No. 22891 of 2019
decided on 16.02.2022 wherein this Court
has held as under:-

"26. In the case of Smt. Meena
Devi (supra), a coordinate Bench of this
Court specifically held after considering
the Full Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Puran Singh (supra) that the
licensee of a fair price shop is only an
agent of the Government engaged for
ensuring the equitable distribution and
availability of the essential commodities at
fair prices. The agent having signed the
license/agreement
is
bound
by
the
conditions mentioned therein including all
such conditions which the Government
chooses to impose during the currency of
such license. A need for fairness in
procedure adopted for suspension and
cancellation of such license/agreement
would not mean that these licenses fall
within the category of a fundamental right
to carry on the business as provided under
Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India.
In the said judgment, judgments passed in
the case of Ashok Kumari Tiwari (supra)
and Sanjay Kumar (supra) have been
distinguished in paragraphs 19 to 21,
which read as under:-

"19. It is this observation of the
Hon'ble
Full
Bench
regarding
the
"fullfledged inquiry" after suspension order
and show cause notice is issued, which has
been interpreted by the
Co-ordinate
Benches of this Court to include giving a
copy of inquiry report, copies of the
statements of witnesses/villagers fixing
date, time and place of hearing for such
cross-examination as the licensee wishes to
carryout
of
such
villagers,
besides
examination
of
documentary
evidence
submitted by him, before the Licensing
Authority
can
pass
the
order
of
cancellation.

20. The judgment rendered by the
Full Bench of this Court was in reference
to the questions referred to it. All
observations made by the Full Bench in the
aforecited judgments in Puran Singh
(supra) are therefore to be taken into
consideration in the context in which the
reference was made and decided. The Full
Bench decision of this Court had examined
paragraphs-4 and 5 of the government
order dated 29.07.2004 in the context of the
reference made to it. The language of
paragraph - 4 refers to full opportunity of
hearing being given to the licensee in the
inquiry to be conducted after suspension
order is passed. The inquiry is to be
completed within a maximum period of one
month necessarily. The final order was to
be passed by the Licensing Authority on
merits after making a clear mention therein
that the concerned licensee had been given
opportunity of hearing and in case he did
not co-operate in the inquiry, a mention
was to be made of the notices served upon
him including the notice giving the final
opportunity in case he avoided the inquiry.

21. The Hon'ble Full Bench had
referred to the object of issuing affair price
shop license and appointing agents for
distribution of essential commodities and
had emphasized that a license is given for
the benefit of ordinary citizens, the
beneficiaries of the Public Distribution
System."
2 All. Ray Sahab Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1025

27. In the aforesaid case, this
Court has held that observation in
paragraph 35 of the judgment in the case
of Puran Singh (supra) that a full-fledged
inquiry in the matter of misconduct of a
licensee in distribution of scheduled
commodities should be held, does not
mean that full-fledged opportunity to the
licensee to cross-examine the witnesses
fixing, date, time and place of the inquiry
etc. as provided in respect of disciplinary
inquiry against Government servants.

28. Learned Single Judge in
paragraph 50 of the aforesaid judgment
had held that judgments rendered by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Gyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others,
decided on 12.9.2012, Ashok Kumar
Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others,
decided on 13.12.2012 and Abu Baker Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2010 (6) ADJ 339
were clearly per incuriam as no such
provision exists in the Government Order
dated 29.7.2004 for fixing date, place and
time for inquiry/oral hearing and giving
opportunity to the licensee to crossexamine the witnesses. Paragraphs 50 and
51 of the said judgment are extracted
herein-below:-

"50. The judgment rendered by
Coordinate Benches before the issuance of
this order dated 16th October, 2014 Viz.
Gyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 12.09.2012, in Ashok Kumar
Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others
decided on 13.12.2012 on the basis of the
judgment in Abu Baker Vs. State of U.P.
and others, reported in 2010 (6) ADJ 339
decided on 23rd of February, 2010,which
is the first judgment wherein relying upon
D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries, (1999) 3
SCC
259
and
National
Building
Construction
Corporation
Vs.
S.
Raghunathan: (1998) 7 SCC 66, the
observation was made that the inquiry was
vitiated
because
the
statements
of
Cardholders were recorded behind the
back of licensee and neither copies of the
statements of the aforesaid witnesses was
furnished to the petitioner nor he was given
any opportunity to cross-examine the
witness so examined, were clearly per
incuriam as no such provision existed in
the government order dated 29.07.2004 at
the time for fixing date, place and time of
inquiry/oral
hearing
and
giving
opportunity for the licensee to cross
examine the witnesses/ complainants.

51.
This
Court
is
of
the
considered opinion that a fair price shop
licence is only an agent for distribution of
scheduled commodities under the Public
Distribution System. Such a licensee being
only an agent acts for the principal i.e. the
Government
with
a
fixed
rate
of
commission on the amount of allocation of
essential
commodities
and
their
distribution
by
weight.
The
Public
Distribution System has been envisaged by
the government only to help the poor and
needy. It is honest tax-payer's money which
is used to subsidize the price of such
essential commodities so that they come
within the reach of poor and needy and
they are able to feed themselves and their
family in a respectable fashion and are not
led to mendicancy and starvation. The
principal remaining the State Government,
and the licensee being only an agent, the
principal is entitled to take away the
licence
in
case
of
irregularity
in
distribution. Of course, there should exist
valid reasons for taking away of such
licence and some opportunity of hearing is
required to be given to the agent in case of
complaints being received against him.
However, there is no fundamental right nor
any Constitutional right for such a licensee
akin to Article 311 of the Constitution of
India. Even in the case of government
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
servants protected under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India the degree of proof
required for establishment of guilt is that of
"preponderance of probability."

33. A coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Najakat Ali (supra) has
held that after issuance of the Control
Order, 2016, the earlier Government
Orders of 2004, 2014 and 2015 stood
repealed and would not occupy the field of
laying down the procedure with respect to
suspension and cancellation of the fair
price shop. The entire procedure has been
prescribed in the Control Order, 2016.
Now, the inquiry is to be conducted by the
designated
officer
regarding
irregularities/malpractices of the dealer as
per the provisions of sub-clause (7) of
Clause 8 of the Control Order, 2016, which
provides that if the license of the fair price
shop is suspended, he has to be issued show
cause notice and explanation/reply of the
show cause notice is to be examined by an
officer one rank above the inquiry officer.
It has been further held that Puran Singh's
(supra)
judgment
was
delivered
considering the Government Order dated
29.7.2004, which since has been repealed.
In paragraphs 94 to 96, a coordinate
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case
held as under:-

"94.
As
the
existence
of
agent/dealer arise from the agreement
executed between them and the State, any
failure on their part or term of license
being violated, the matter has to be dealt
with by the authority within the scope and
ambit of the Act/Control Order under
which the same has been executed.