Sheodaan Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is a Fair Price dealer, who has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Up Zila Adhikari, Chandausi, Moradabad and the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal.

Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that vide order dated 22.09.2009 licence of the petitioner was sought to be suspended on the ground that he was involved in commission of a criminal offence, i.e. murder and was also arrested. Subsequently, by order dated 27.11.2009, his licence has been cancelled. The order of cancellation states that the charges were sought to be served vide charge memo dated 22.10.2009 while the petitioner was in detention through the Jail Superintendent, Moradabad and as he did not submit any reply to the said charge memo, hence his licence was cancelled. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and contended that the aforesaid chargememo dated 22.10.2009 had not been served upon him and as a result thereof he could not submit his defence and, therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated and accordingly, the impugned orders cancelling the licence of the petitioners are liable to be set aside.

The Appellate Authority while passing order dated 25.08.2010 has not discussed the said issue as to whether charges were served upon the petitioner or not. and has only proceeded to pass the impugned order on the basis of certain complaints made by the card holders as regards Mal distribution of the food grains and kerosene.

On the strength of the contention raised before the appellate authority vide paragraph No. 11 of the memo of appeal and para 8 of the writ petition, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate authority has committed illegality in as much as it has not addressed the issue as to whether the charge memo was served upon him or not and as a result thereof he could not submit his defence, therefore, the case of the petitioner has been severely prejudiced.

Per contra, the submission of Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent is that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of materials available on record and in accordance with law and the same are not liable to be interfered with.

From the record, it appears that the petitioner was in jail from 14.09.2009 onwards and charge memo dated 22.10.2009 was sent to the District Jail Superintendent for effecting its service on the petitioner, but the impugned orders are completely silent as to whether in fact the said charge memo was ever served upon the petitioner or not. Even in the counter affidavit it has not been disclosed as to when the charges were served upon the petitioner. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is no evidence on record from which interference can be drawn that the charge memo dated 22.10.2009 was ever served upon the petitioner, If that be so, then the case of the petitioner has been severely prejudiced in as much as, he has been deprived of submitting his defence to the charge and that it was only by the order of the cancellation of licence dated 27.11.2009 that the petitioner came to know for the first time as to the reasons on the basis of which his licence has been cancelled.

This Court is in full agreement with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The impugned orders have been passed, completely ignoring the fact that the charge memo dated 22.09.200 had not been served upon the petitioner and thus the same became vulnerable in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 27.11.2009 and 25.08.2010 are quashed. The matter is relegated to the licensing authority, who shall pass fresh orders, if it so desires, in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.