KANSHI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of power conferred under Public Distribution System Order 2001, (hereinafter referred to as Order 2001) State Government has issued notification dated 20.12.2004 namely the UP Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004, wherein the procedure has been provided for appointment of a fair price shop dealer. The petitioner came to be appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer after following the said provisions. According to Order 2001, A Fair Price Shop Dealer would mean a person and includes a Co-operative Society or a Corporation or a company of a State Government or a Gram Panchayat or any other body in whose name a shop has been licensed to distribute the essential commodities under the Public Distribution System. Clause 7 there of provides for licensing and authorisation to the fair price shop for distribution of the essential commodities. State Government is authorised to issue an order regulating the sale and distribution of the essential commodities for which license is required to be granted to the shop owner. The terms of license lay down duties and responsibilities of the fair price shop owner. Para 5 of the Annexe, PDS Order, 2001 referred to in Clause 7 of the said order reads as under:

(2.) The condition of the license also ensures the State Government's power to monitor the funding of the fair price shop which includes periodical check up by the officers nominated in this behalf. Proper authority to hold enquiry is also defined under the regulations.

(3.) A complaint was received against the petitioner that stock which were entrusted to him on inspection were found to be deficient. Essential commodities were not distributed amongst the card holders entitled to receive the same. An enquiry was conducted by the officers of the department who submitted their report confirming the allegations levelled against the petitioner to be correct. In pursuance to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner he was asked regarding shortage of essential commodities in the stock register which on physical verification was found that there was shortage of 3.40 qw of sugar, 7.50 qw of wheat, 8.00 qw of rice whereas the dealer has lifted 3.50 qw of sugar, 20.90 qw of wheat and 20 kw of rice from the godown. In his explanation the petitioner stated that he admitted lifting of the quantity of the stocks mentioned herein above but stated that the said stock were kept with his brother. The brother of the petitioner had lifted the stock and refused to return the same. Other allegations were denied by him. On the receipt of the said explanation submitted by the petitioner the same was found to be unsatisfactory and as a result of which his license was cancelled vide order dated 23.12.2005 by Assistant Collector, Etah. An appeal was preferred against the said order which stood dismissed vide order dated 22.6.2006. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.