EKBAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri L.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, Ekabal Khan, resident of Village Sutari, Post Dariyapur, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar, was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for distributing essential commodities in furtherance of public distribution scheme in 1993, to be more precise by order dated 21.10.1993 issued by the Deputy Collector, Bulandshahar. The said appointment was for Gram Sabha Sutari and the quota assigned to petitioner was 330 kg. of sugar and 676 liters of kerosene oil.

(3.) It appears that a complaint was made by one Sri Shaharuddin son of Nishar Ahmad against petitioner, whereupon the District Supply Officer, Bulandshahar directed for an inquiry vide order dated 18.05.2011. It is said that Block Development Officer, Bulandshahar submitted report on 21.06.2011 observing that the complaints have been made by several persons regarding non-distribution of essential commodities and that for the last four months there has not been any distribution of wheat to card holders. Consequently, by order dated 11.08.2011 the Deputy Collector suspended the dealership of petitioner. A show cause notice/charge sheet was issued on 11.08.2011, served on 17.08.2011. On the request of petitioner a further inquiry was conducted by Tehsildar (Judicial), Bulandshahar on 17.08.2011 and he submitted report on 18.08.2011. Thereafter the petitioner submitted reply on 21.09.2011. The Deputy Collector ultimately passed order on 24.09.2011 cancelling fair price shop agreement of petitioner and forfeiting security. He relied on Tehsildar's report dated 17.08.2011 as also the history of petitioner's way of working inasmuch as earlier also on 22.03.2011 his agreement was suspended but restored on 14.07.2011 with a warning and imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/-. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 3/2011-12 before Commissioner, which has been rejected by order dated 13.02.2012. The Appellate Authority has observed that dealer was not regularly distributing essential commodities and could not justify non-distribution in particular the APL wheat in the months of May, June and July, 2011; failed to produce documents during inquiry and charged excess rate, therefore, has violated Clause 4(3) of Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004.