SURESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 28/29.1.1992 passed by respondent No. 3, the District Supply Officer, Varanasi, as communicated to him. vide his office letter No. 527/DSO Shop 5/92 dated 29.1.1992 as contained in Annexure-4 suspending and cancelling with immediate effect the licence of his shop No. 193, Chowk Division on the ground that he has unauthorisedly transferred his shop by way of shikmi (sublet) to Vijay Kumar son of Mewa Lal, House No, C-9/115, Habibpura, Varanasi, after recording a finding that despite notice, he has failed to file his show cause and thus he had nothing to state in regard to the charge.

(2.) Mr. Dhananjay Rai. holding brief of Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended as follows : The notice dated 8.1.1992 requiring to file show cause in regard to the alleged violation of Provision No. 23 of the U. P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 1990. had not mentioned any specific date within which the show cause was required to be filed by the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on 29.1.1992 even though the petitioner had apprised respondent No. 3 of his earlier order as contained in Annexure-2 permitting the petitioner to man the shop through Vijay Kumar as his manager but this has not been referred to in the order impugned. Had the petitioner been given proper opportunity, he would have demonstrated that as per recitals in the notice, the petitioner had appointed the aforesaid Vijay Kumar as his salesman and thus, drawing of an inference by respondent No- 3 that he had sublet his shop was wholly misconceived.

(3.) Sri H. R. Mishra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, contended as follows : (i) After the service of the notice on the petitioner, it was expected of him to file show cause within a reasonable time, say, within 15 days, which he never did and thus no wrong was committed by the authority In passing the Impugned order. (ii) From the document appended as Annexure-2, it is clear that the permission was granted only temporarily to the petitioner on account of his illness to man his Fair Price Shop under the managership of Vijay Kumar and not permanently, and accordingly. the submissions of Mr. Rai are not sound and the Impugned order need not be set aside. (iii) The authorities, after receipt of a complaint, had rightly drawn an inference that the shop had been sublet by the petitioner to Vijay Kumar aforementioned.