DESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranjan Srivastava appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 to which rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19th December, 2009 by which order the petitioner's fair price agreement has been suspended and supply of respondent No. 3 has been restored.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer in the year 2007. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner. A notice dated 22nd November, 2008 was issued to the petitioner to show cause with regard to certain irregularities in distribution. On 2nd December, 2008 on Tahsil Divas villagers made complaint to the District Magistrate. Under the direction of the District Magistrate a first information report was lodged against the petitioner on 2nd December, 2008 itself under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A direction was also issued by the District Magistrate to the Sub-Divisional Officer to obtain a resolution in favour of Ghasi Ram, respondent No. 3. By order dated 4th December, 2009 the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the petitioner's fair price agreement. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 4th December, 2008. The appeal of the petitioner was admitted but the stay application was rejected on 9th January, 2009. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 17944 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner, which writ petition was disposed of on 8th April, 2009. This Court took the view that appellate authority ought to have stayed the order dated 4th December, 2008 and an order was passed by this Court staying the order dated 4th December, 2008 during pendency of the appeal. The appeal subsequently was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 13th July, 2009 setting aside the order dated 4th December, 2009. The appellate authority observed that appellant was entitled for opportunity mentioning the irregularities and after receiving his reply further proceedings were to be taken. The appellate authority also observed that after giving opportunity the Sub-Divisional Officer may take fresh decision. Against the order dated 13th July, 2009 a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 40996 of 2009 was filed by the respondent No. 3, which was dismissed by this Court on 12th August, 2009. It appears that some notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 7th September, 2009. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice dated 7th September, 2009 on 29th September, 2009. The Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 19th December, 2009 suspended the petitioner's fair price shop agreement and directed that supply in favour of respondent No. 3 be restored. The petitioner has come up in this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order.