High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raj Bahadru Chauhan v. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division And Ors. - WRIT - C No. 31987 of 1995  RD-AH 11841 (12 July 2007)
Court No. 28
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31987 of 1995
Raj Bahadur Chauhan
The Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi & Ors.,
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28th July, 1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cancelling the licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner and the order dated 21st September, 1995 passed by the Commissioner by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order has been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner was granted licence to run the fair price shop by the order dated 17th February, 1992. The licence was cancelled by the order dated 28th July, 1995 on the ground that he had committed irregularities in the distribution of the food grains and that he was also not a resident of the Gram Panchayat Andhokhar. The appeal filed against the said order had also been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the licence of the fair price shop was cancelled merely on the report submitted by the Gram Pradhan without their being any resolution of the Gaon Sabha. I do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as even a perusal of the Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not indicate that the cancellation order can be passed only on the basis of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha.
A perusal of the impugned order does not show that any notice was issued to the petitioner before canelling the fair price shop licence and even though this ground has been subsequently taken by the petitioner in the appeal before the learned Commissioner but the order of the Commissioner does not indicate that this aspect of the matter has been examined. However, it has not been stated in the petition that notice was not given prior to the cancellation of the licence.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, urged that more than 12 years have lapsed since the passing of the impugned order and the said shop must have been allotted to some other person but the petitioner has not impleaded the said allottee and, therefore, in such circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
It is true that about 12 years have lapsed since the passing of the impugned order and in the absence of any interim order, the petitioner has not been operating the fair price shop. The fair price shop must have been allotted to some other person but he has not been impleaded. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the petitioner. It would, however, be open to the petitioner, in the event there is any vacancy, to move an application for consideration of his case for grant of the licence.
Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.