SAVITRI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER AZAMGARH DIVISION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was granted a license in the year 1996 to run a fair price shop. By an order dated 2 -11 -2001 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mau, Respondent No. 2, the license of the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, on 10 -1 -2002, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order cancelling the license of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said, the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, Respondent No. 1, vide his order dated 19 -3 -2002. Challenging the orders dated 10 -1 -2002 and 19 -3 -2002 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rahul Sripat and Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No one has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 even in the revised list. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) THE entire process creates a doubt on the intention of the respondent -authorities. The suspension of the license of the petitioner was directed on 2 -11 -2001 and the cancellation order was passed on 10 -1 -2002. However, on 23 -9 -2001 a complaint was made by the Respondent No. 3, who is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, and thereafter on 25 -9 -2001 a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat proposing the name of the Respondent No. 4 for being granted the license in place of the petitioner. Immediately on the same day when the license of the petitioner has been cancelled, the appointment of Respondent No. 4 has been made i.e. on 10 -1 -2002 itself. The same has been done on the basis of a resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 25 -9 -2001.It is not understood as to how the respondent -authorities have placed reliance on a resolution recommending the name of the Respondent No. 4, for grant of license for fair price shop, even when there was no place vacant and the petitioner was till then continuing as a license holder to run the fair price shop. The entire action of the respondent -authorities appear to be motivated in favour of Respondent No. 4, only to oblige her and the same also gives credence to the averments of the petitioner made in the writ petition that the entire action against the petitioner has been taken after the change in guards of the Gram Panchayat, after the new Pradhan was elected. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to justify as to on what basis the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was made, relying on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 25 -9 -2001, which was passed much prior to the passing of the order cancelling the license of the petitioner. It was only after the license had been cancelled that proposals for fresh appointment could have been called and then the Gram Panchayat could have considered the same. It has also not been justified by the learned Standing Counsel as to why and how, after cancellation of the license of the petitioner, an order granting license to the Respondent No. 4 had been passed on the same date. Was it that the licensing authority was waiting with the proposal of the Gram Panchayat passed in favour of Respondent No. 4 in advance, and by a single stroke he cancelled the license of the petitioner and granted the same to Respondent No. 4. This action is not in consonance with well established principles of law and fair play.