Baldev Raj and Others vs State and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Aniruddh Joshi, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Sri J.S. Bisht, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

The Screening Committee by an order dated 19th February, 1992 held that the Petitioners did not have sufficient funds for the renewal of the licence. On this basis, the licence of the Petitioners was cancelled by the competent authority on 3rd June, 1992. The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No. 1075 of 1993 before the Allahabad High Court, in which the cancellation of the licence was stayed, as a result of which the Petitioners continued to run their fair price shop. This petition was dismissed as withdrawn as having been rendered infructuous by an order dated 3rd May, 1999. Consequently, a recall application was filed alleging that the writ petition had not been rendered infructuous. This application was disposed of by an order dated 29th October, 1999 giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to file a fresh writ petition justifying the earlier orders of the Court. In the meanwhile, upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the District Supply Officer passed a fresh order for cancellation of the licence by an order dated 30th September, 1999. The Petitioners, consequently, filed the present Writ Petition No. 51461 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court challenging not only the order dated 30th September, 1999 but also the earlier orders dated 19th February, 1992 and 3rd June, 1992, which were challenged in the earlier writ petition. This writ petition was entertained by the Allahabad High Court and an interim order was granted.

Upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, this matter has been transferred to this Court u/s 35 of the State Reorganization Act, 2000.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the application for the renewal of the licence was rejected by the Respondents on the ground that the Petitioners have failed to show that they have sufficient funds to lift the essential commodities. It has not come on record to indicate as to how much sufficient funds were required by the Petitioners in order to lift the essential commodities. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the cancellation of the licence of the Petitioners is based on non-existent and arbitrary grounds which cannot be sustained.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and it is now open to the Respondents to consider the renewal of the licence afresh on the basis of the Government Orders issued by the Government from time to time.