Sheopat Ram Godara S/o Late Shri Bhoora Ram vs Additional Food Commissioner, Department of Food

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18.12.2015 at annexure-12 and 20.7.2016 at annexure-21, passed by the District Supply Officer-II, Bikaner, order dated 17.10.2016 at annexure-25 passed by the Collector, Bikaner in appeal and the order dated 12.4.2017 at annexure-27 passed by the Additional Food Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Jaipur on a revision.

Learned counsel submits that without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cancellation of authorisation of fair price shop was made. When petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, it was allowed vide order dated 8.6.2016. It was with a direction to supply copy of the report dated 16.12.2015 and thereupon the matter may be decided afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order was again passed on 20.7.2016 though petitioner was not supplied any document referred in the report dated 16.12.2015, rather, a vague show cause notice was given to him hence a proper opportunity of hearing was denied. The petitioner preferred an appeal and subsequently revision petition but without considering any of the objections raised therein, order of the DSO was endorsed. In view of the above, this petition has been filed to challenge all the orders with a prayer to set aside them with restoration of authorisation of the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner.

I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused the record.

The authorisation of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled by the DSO vide order dated 18.12.2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. It was allowed vice order dated 8.6.2016 and the order dated 18.12.2015 was set aside with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after supplying copy of the report dated 16.12.2015.

In pursuance to the aforesaid order, a show cause notice was issued again along with copy of the report dated 16.12.2015. The petitioner submitted reply vide Annexure-19. The reply aforesaid is quoted hereunder for ready reference-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

The petitioner did not ask to supply any document before filing of the reply. The report gives details of the default and the irregularities. The petitioner wants to take benefit of his own default now to say that documents were not supplied to him.

If the report was supplied and reference of certain documents was existing, petitioner could have asked to furnish copy of those documents before filing reply but he failed to do so. Based on the reply and after aopportunity of hearing, DSO again passed an order on 20.7.2016 cancelling authorisation of fair price shop. The appeal and the revision thereupon were dismissed by a detailed and speaking order. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, it cannot be said to be a case where order was passed by the DSO without proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is more so when at the first instance, appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Collector with remand of the case and it was remanded in reference to the report dated 16.12.2015, which was supplied to the petitioner.

In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed.