01Facts
The petitioner had operated a fair-price shop since 2006. Following a complaint by the Gram Pradhan (citing personal enmity), an inquiry was conducted where the petitioner’s stock was initially found to be in order
¶ 5Despite a subsequent "clean chit" from the S.D.M. in April 2017, another complaint was filed on July 4, 2017. Following this, the District Supply Officer (DSO) cancelled the petitioner’s license on July 5, 2017, without considering her detailed reply
¶ 5, 15The Deputy Commissioner (Food) dismissed her appeal on November 14, 2017
¶ 4, 11During the pendency of the appeal, the shop was allotted to Smt. Sakeela Bano, a relative of the Gram Pradhan residing in the same household
¶ 5, 902Issues
i.1. Whether the cancellation order passed by the District Supply Officer was legally sustainable given the alleged lack of consideration of the petitioner's reply.
¶ 11, 15ii.2. Whether the allotment of the fair-price shop to the relative of a Gram Pradhan violated existing Government Orders.
¶ 8, 1603Law Applied
principles of natural justice regarding the necessity of considering a licensee’s explanation before termination
¶ 15Government Order dated 18.05.1999, specifically Clause 1.8, which prohibits the allotment of a fair-price shop to family members or relatives of a Gram Pradhan, defining "family" as including any member residing and eating in the same household
¶ 8, 9Government Order dated 05.08.2019 regarding the preferential allotment of shops to legal heirs upon the death of a quota holder
¶ 20Provisions in the judgment · 1
Government Order dated 18.5.1999 (U.P.) Section 1.8
04Reasoning
The court found the DSO’s order dated July 5, 2017, to be "casual" and mechanically passed because it failed to address the petitioner’s detailed point-by-point rebuttal and supporting documents
¶ 15court examined the electoral rolls, which confirmed that the new allottee, Smt. Sakeela Bano, resided in House No. 65—the same residence as the Gram Pradhan—thereby qualifying her as a "family member" under the restrictive provisions of the 1999 Government Order
¶ 9, 16The Appellate Authority also erred by failing to address these specific grounds raised in the memo of appeal
¶ 10, 1105Holding
the allotment to respondent no. 6 was void ab initio and the cancellation of the petitioner's shop was procedurally flawed.
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation order (05.07.2017), the appellate order (14.11.2017), and the allotment order to Smt. Sakeela Bano (01.08.2017)
¶ 18, 19Since the petitioner passed away during the proceedings, the court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baldiray, to hold a meeting within three months to consider the legal heirs of the deceased for preferential allotment in accordance with the Government Order dated 05.08.2019
¶ 20Original Court PDF
Asgari BeganvsState Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
