MUKHTAR ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, Shri K. B. Garg for respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage. As the petition can be decided on a short question of law, it does not appear necessary to call for a counter-affidavit.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner was appointed a fair price shop dealer in the year 1994 for village Parsupura, Nyaya Panchayat Saraba, Tahsil Sadar, District Rampur. On the complaint of the Pradhan, the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 3.8.1995 cancelled the agreement of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 3, Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. One of the grounds raised in the appeal was that petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. THE appeal has, however, been dismissed vide order dated 23.11.1995. From a perusal of the order, it is clear that respondent No. 3 has not examined the question that respondent No. 2 could not pass the order against petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing. THE case of petitioner was that resolution was passed on account of the enmity and he had not committed any illegality or irregularity in distribution of the essential commodities. It cannot be denied that by order dated 3.8.1995, valuable right of the petitioner was affected and a right cannot be taken without giving an opportunity of hearing. Both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 thus have committed a manifest illegality and the orders passed cannot be sustained. It may be stated here that Pradhan has been given authority to supervise and keep a watch on the conduct of the fair-price shop dealer but ultimately action in the matter can be taken by the authority namely respondent No. 2 and Pradhan's complaint or the resolution passed at his instance could not be taken as final. It was subject to challenges raised by petitioner.