HARI DAS SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER AGRA DIVISION AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of a fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Badagaon, Block Jaitpur, Kahan, District Agra according to the Government Order dated 30/07/1990. On the basis ofcertain allegations against him, the petitioner was asked to show cause by an order dated 16/09/1997 contained in Annexure 4 in respect of the charges levelled against him The petitioner's licence was suspended on 20th of September, 1997 by an order of even date contained in Annexure 5. The petitioner had submitted his reply contained in Annexure 6 which however does not bear any date. However, after considering this reply as well as taking into account the charges levelled against him by order dated 3/11/1997, his licence was cancelled. This order is Annexure 7 to this writ petition. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority and had also applied for stay of the order dated 3/11/1997 on 10th November, 1997, nameely the date on which the appeal was preferred. The appeal for stay having been rejected and the stay having been refused on 11/12/1997 the petitioner moved writ petition No. 44019 of 1997. By an order dated 23/12/1997, this writ petition was disposed of directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two months. The appeal was decided by the appellate authority by an order dated 28/04/1998 which is Annexure 12 to this writ petition. It is this order which is since been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing with Mr. R. N. Sharma had contended that the decision of the Full Bench in the case of U. P. Sasta Galla Vikreta Parishad v. State of U. P., (1992) 2 EFR 655 (All) (FB) cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In as much as in the said decision, the agreement of the Government Order under which the statutory contract was entered into did not contain any provisions for appeal. The provision for appeal was subsequently incorporated by a Government Order and that in the present case, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and the order thus challenges an appellate order and as such the said decision had no manner of application. He had also contended that in the present case there was no enquiry and that the petitioner was never given any opportunity. As such the principle of equality and natural justice having been violated, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He had also pointed out from the respective orders and the materials on record that there was no material before the authority concerned to arrive at the conclusion that there was any breach in the condition of the contract or that the petitioner's licence could be cancelled. He then contended that even though it relates to a contract when the same is terminated Article 14 applies in full force and as such it is open to the petitioner to approach the Court under Article 226 and at the same time challenge the order on account of violation of natural justice and that of equity and equality.

(3.) The learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that in view of the decision of the Full Bench referred to above, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. Over and above, the petitioner was given an opportunity and there was sufficient reasons to arrive at the conclusion. The materials that has been placed does not show that there was any perversity in the order. According to him the principle laid down by the Full Bench applies in full force in the present case. He then contends that the petitioner having been given an opportunity and the matter having been proceeded in accordance with law the petitioner cannot raise any grievance. He also pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 10/12/1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51595 of 1999 formulated certain questions and had placed the same and opined that the same should be referred to a Larger Bench in order to consider acceptability after decision of the Full Bench in U. P. Sasta Galla Vikreta Parishad (1992 (2) EFR 655 (All)) (supra) on account of the challenged (changed?) condition.