HARPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a fair price shop licencee. His licence has been suspended by order dated 28. 5. 2005 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, District-Bareilly. THE petitioner has challenged the suspension order on the ground that the suspension order does not disclose any material which is to be relied upon by the respondents during the enquiry. It has not been mentioned as to when and who had inspected the shop of the petitioner, when he found that the notice was not displayed on the shop. THE allegation that the petitioner had not distributed sugar etc. to persons who were below poverty line is vague as no details of persons had been mentioned to whom sugar etc. were not distributed. It has also not been mentioned as to whom the kerosene oil was sold at the rate of Rs. 127- per litre, in excess of the scheduled price, and in violation of the agreement. THE petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 28. 5. 2005 by means of this writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard Sri S. D. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. S. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of G. O. dated 29. 7. 2004 and GO. dated 20. 12. 2004. He has further urged that Government order dated 20. 12. 2004 is ultra vires. The learned Counsel further urged that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He has lastly urged that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to livelihood due to illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60978 of 2005, Smt. Alka Rani v. State of UP. and others, decided on 14. 9. 2005. On the other hand, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has urged that there were complaints against the peti tioner of irregularities and the complaints have been filed along with the counter affidavit. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopi v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (6) ADJ 231.

(3.) PARAGRAPH 2 (ii) of the GO. dated 29. 7. 2004 empowers the authorities to make surprise inspection and if he finds any serious irregularity then in his dis cretion the officer may suspend the licence. Even if the authority finds any irregu lar work or irregularity in distribution or black marketing by the licencee even then he is empowered to suspend the licence, but in the suspension order it is mandatory for him to mention every irregularity found by him and he is also required to issue a show cause notice to the licences to show cause as to why the licence may not be cancelled.