ABU BAKER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

(2.) The petitioner's fair price shop licence was suspended by respondent No. 3 by order dated 23.12.2005 on the allegations that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004 by charging excess amount for the essential commodities from the B.P.L. card holders and Antodaya card holders. By the same order, the petitioner was also required to show-cause as to why his agreement be not cancelled. The petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notice denying the allegations made against him and alongwith his reply, the petitioner also filed documents before respondent No. 3 for showing that the grounds on which the petitioner's fair price shop agreement was sought to be cancelled were unfounded. After receiving petitioner's reply, respondent No. 3 recorded the statements of some of the B.P.L. and Antodaya card holders behind the back of the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to cross-examine the said witness and without furnishing him with the copies of their statements by his order dated 7.2.2006, cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop holding that the allegations made against the petitioner were proved. Against the order of respondent No. 3 petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Appeal No. 153A of 2004 and dismissed by him by his order dated 23.12.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop agreement by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the statement of the witness recorded behind the back of the petitioner and without the copies of the statements of the witnesses being furnished to him and also without giving him any opportunity to cross-examine the witness who had deposed against him was not sustainable, action of the respondent No. 3 being in contravention of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the order of respondent No. 3 was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No, 2 specifically on the aforesaid ground. However, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the petitioner's appeal without considering and recording any finding on the aforesaid issue raised before him.

(3.) In support of his submissions learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in Raj Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.,2008 26 LCD 931 National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, 1998 7 SCC 66 and D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, 1993 3 SCC 259.