Jayprakash Dubey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supply U.P. Lko

1. Heard Shri Hairdaya Narain Tiwari,, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Alok Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Piyush Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.10 (Subsequent Allotee).

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner had filed an Appeal No.1188 of 2025 under Clause 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution) (Control) Order 2016, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) and the petitioner has challenged the appellate order also.

3. The cancellation order dated 28.04.2025 states that upon receipt of a complaint against the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by the Regional Food Officer, Ambedkar Nagar and Supply Inspector, who have submitted an inquiry report dated

26.10.2024 stating that certain irregularities have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner's fair price shop license was suspended by means of an order dated

13.10.2024 he was directed to submit his explanation. The explanation of the petitioner was examined by the Tehsildar, Jalalpur who submitted reports dated 10.03.2025 and 10.04.2025 affirming the findings of the inquiry report.

4. The cancellation order passed by the S.D.M., Jalalpur states that upon perusal of the examination report submitted by Tehsildar, Jalalpur and other evidence available on record it appears that it has been found that the petitioner is guilty of weighing lesser quantities. The petitioner is guilty of violating the provisions of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution) (Control) Order 2016, and the continuance of his fair price shop license will not be in public interest. 2 WRIC No. 10965 of 2025

5. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry in the present case was conducted by Area Rationing Officer. The petitioner had submitted an explanation regarding which it is stated in the impugned order that it was examined by Tehsildar. Although the impugned order states that the petitioner's explanation was examined by the Tehsildar, a perusal of the report submitted by the Tehsildar indicates that the report was prepared by the Naib Tehsildar and the Tehsildar has merely forwarded the report.

6. Clause 8(7) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution) (Control) Order 2016 provides as follows:- "The Competent authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop owner's license. An inquiry regarding irregularities in distribution by a fair price shop owner shall be conducted by the Designated officer or by the District Magistrate. After inquiry, if the license of fair price shop owner is suspended along with a show cause notice by the competent authority, then the reply/ explanation of show cause notice by fair price shop owners will be examined by an officer at least one rank above the inquiry officer. If the preliminary enquiry had been conducted by a district level officer, then the explanation by fair price shop owners shall be examined by another district level officer."

7. The Government has issued an order dated 05.10.2019 laying down the procedure for suspension/cancellation and attachment of fair price shops. Clause 5 of this order provides that an explanation submitted by a fair price shop dealer will be examined by an Officer, who is at least one rank higher than the inquiry officer. In case the inquiry has been conducted by a Supply Inspector the report will be examined by the Area Rationing Officer or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. If the preliminary inquiry has been conducted by any District Level Officer, the explanation of the fair price shop dealer shall be examined by any other District Level Officer.

8. In the present case, the inquiry was conducted by the Area Rationing Officer and the Supply Inspector. The petitioner's explanation has been examined by the Naib Tehsildar whose report has merely been forwarded by the Tehsildar. Naib Tehsildar is neither higher in rank to the Area Rationing Officer nor he is another District Level Officer. The mere forwarding report of Naib Tehsildar by the Tehsildar would not amount to consideration of the petitioner's explanation by the Tehsildar.

9. In these circumstances, cancellation of petitioner's license based on consideration of the petitioner's explanation by a Naib Tehsildar, cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.04.2025 3 WRIC No. 10965 of 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.4- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Jalalpur District- Ambedkar Nagar for being decided afresh and after taking into consideration all the pleas taken by the petitioner in the reply submitted to the show cause notice.

11. It is clarified that the rights of the subsequent allottee (the respondent No.10) will be governed by the outcome of fresh decision and till a fresh decision is taken, the respondent No.10 shall continue to function as such. The proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order. November 20, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Hairdaya Narain Tiwari,, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Alok Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Piyush Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.10 (Subsequent Allotee).

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner had filed an Appeal No.1188 of 2025 under Clause 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution) (Control) Order 2016, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) and the petitioner has challenged the appellate order also.

3. The cancellation order dated 28.04.2025 states that upon receipt of a complaint against the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by the Regional Food Officer, Ambedkar Nagar and Supply Inspector, who have submitted an inquiry report dated

26.10.2024 stating that certain irregularities have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner's fair price shop license was suspended by means of an order dated

13.10.2024 he was directed to submit his explanation. The explanation of the petitioner was examined by the Tehsildar, Jalalpur who submitted reports dated 10.03.2025 and 10.04.2025 affirming the findings of the inquiry report.

4. The cancellation order passed by the S.D.M., Jalalpur states that upon perusal of the examination report submitted by Tehsildar, Jalalpur and other evidence available on record it appears that it has been found that the petitioner is guilty of weighing lesser quantities. The petitioner is guilty of violating the provisions of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution) (Control) Order 2016, and the continuance of his fair price shop license will not be in public interest. 2 WRIC No. 10965 of 2025

5. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry in the present case was conducted by Area Rationing Officer. The petitioner had submitted an explanation regarding which it is stated in the impugned order that it was examined by Tehsildar. Although the impugned order states that the petitioner's explanation was examined by the Tehsildar, a perusal of the report submitted by the Tehsildar indicates that the report was prepared by the Naib Tehsildar and the Tehsildar has merely forwarded the report.

6. Clause 8(7) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution) (Control) Order 2016 provides as follows:- "The Competent authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop owner's license. An inquiry regarding irregularities in distribution by a fair price shop owner shall be conducted by the Designated officer or by the District Magistrate. After inquiry, if the license of fair price shop owner is suspended along with a show cause notice by the competent authority, then the reply/ explanation of show cause notice by fair price shop owners will be examined by an officer at least one rank above the inquiry officer. If the preliminary enquiry had been conducted by a district level officer, then the explanation by fair price shop owners shall be examined by another district level officer."

7. The Government has issued an order dated 05.10.2019 laying down the procedure for suspension/cancellation and attachment of fair price shops. Clause 5 of this order provides that an explanation submitted by a fair price shop dealer will be examined by an Officer, who is at least one rank higher than the inquiry officer. In case the inquiry has been conducted by a Supply Inspector the report will be examined by the Area Rationing Officer or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. If the preliminary inquiry has been conducted by any District Level Officer, the explanation of the fair price shop dealer shall be examined by any other District Level Officer.

8. In the present case, the inquiry was conducted by the Area Rationing Officer and the Supply Inspector. The petitioner's explanation has been examined by the Naib Tehsildar whose report has merely been forwarded by the Tehsildar. Naib Tehsildar is neither higher in rank to the Area Rationing Officer nor he is another District Level Officer. The mere forwarding report of Naib Tehsildar by the Tehsildar would not amount to consideration of the petitioner's explanation by the Tehsildar.

9. In these circumstances, cancellation of petitioner's license based on consideration of the petitioner's explanation by a Naib Tehsildar, cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.04.2025 3 WRIC No. 10965 of 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.4- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Jalalpur District- Ambedkar Nagar for being decided afresh and after taking into consideration all the pleas taken by the petitioner in the reply submitted to the show cause notice.

11. It is clarified that the rights of the subsequent allottee (the respondent No.10) will be governed by the outcome of fresh decision and till a fresh decision is taken, the respondent No.10 shall continue to function as such. The proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order. November 20, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench