ALLAHABAD TRADERS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16th March, 2012 passed by respondent no.2 (Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply) by which an earlier order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the Regional Food Controller, respondent no.3 blacklisting the petitioner has been affirmed.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of transportation. He was registered with the Regional Food Controller, Allahabad as "A Class Contractor/Handling agent". It is said that the petitioner was required to transport 29600 quintal of custom paddy from purchase centre Manjhanpur, Kaushambi to Rakesh Mini Rice Mill, Manjhanpur. It is alleged by the petitioner that on satisfactory completion of work, the payment of the amount due to the petitioner, was recommended by the Marketing Inspector and the District Food Marketing Officer, Kaushambi vide letters dated 23.05.2009 and 28.05.2009 to the Regional Food Controller and after his approval on 20.06.2009, the payment was also made. The payment of the security money in respect of the aforesaid transaction was also recommended. It is stated that subsequently, a complaint was filed by the rice mill owner on 03.07.2009 in respect of the aforesaid transaction. It said that out of 29600 quintal of paddy allotted to him only 11659.05 quintal of paddy was received. An enquiry was instituted on 13.07.2009 in respect of the said complaint. Consequent to the institution of inquiry, the Regional Food Controller issued an order dated 31.08.2009, restraining the concerned officer from making payment to the petitioner, and also stating that in the event the payment had already been made, the same could be adjusted from other dues of the petitioner. On 30.10.2009, an order was issued blacklisting the petitioner and cancelling his registration with the department. This order was passed on the basis of enquiry reports dated 3.09.2009 and 27.10.2009. An FIR is also said to have been lodged on 5.9.2009 itself. It is not out of place to mention here that the District Magistrate had also instituted an enquiry into the matter on the above mentioned complaint of the mill owner, appointing the Chief Development Officer of the district as the enquiry officer, who submitted his report on 30.07.2009, recording a finding that the mill owner had manufactured and fabricated the documents. In the said enquiry report, the mill owner and the officers of the department were held responsible. Writ Petition No.60643 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of blacklisting dated 30.10.2009, which was allowed on 30.11.2009.The impugned order was quashed with liberty to the concerned opposite party to pass a fresh order.

(3.) Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 4.12.2009 was issued to the petitioner to which reply was submitted by it on 14.12.2009. The petitioner was again blacklisted by the order dated 22.12.2009, and his registration with the department was also cancelled.