High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Baldev v. Commissioner Azamgar Division & Others - WRIT - C No. 33979 of 2004  RD-AH 5218 (6 March 2006)
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 23.7.2004, 29.4.1994 and 12.4.1994, Annexures -1 to 3 respectively to the writ petition.
The case of the petitioner is that he was a licensee of the Fair Price shop. By a resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 12.4.1994 a resolution was passed for canceling the license of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is charging excess amount while distributing the sugar as well as the kerosene oil. The licensing authority vide its order dated 29.4.1994 has cancelled license of the shop of the petitioner and the same has been attached to one Sri Ram Nath. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed an appeal. The appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 23.7.2004. It has specifically been stated before the authorities as well as an application to this effect has been made that before passing the aforesaid order no notice and opportunity to explain the charges against the petitioner has been given. As such, the order is in violation of Section 8 (2) of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoardings) Order 1989. In pursuance of the 1989 Order, Order 8 (2) clearly provides that before cancellation of the license a notice and opportunity has to be given. The petitioner submits that the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority has not considered the said submission on behalf of the petitioner and no finding by the appellate authority has been recorded. Even the competent authority has also not recorded ay finding to that effect.
There is no denial in the counter affidavit. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of the report and resolution of the Gaon Sabha, as such it is not necessary to afford an opportunity to the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In view of the averments made in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit, in my opinion the orders passed by the respondents are against the principle of natural justice and in clear violation of Order 8 Rule (2) of the Act. In such a situation, the orders passed by the respondents dated 29.4.1994, 12.4.1994 and 23.7.2004 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to respondent no.2 to pass an appropriate order after affording full opportunity to the petitioner.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
W.P.No.33979 of 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.