HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1106 of 2002 (M/S) (Old No. 46472 of 1999) M/s Krishak Uttam Sewa Samiti, Gadarpur And others. ……Petitioners Versus State and others. .…..Respondents. Mr. Ram Ji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State Dated: July 30 , 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- i. “To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.09.1999, passed by respondent no.1 (annexure no. 7). ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.06.1992, passed by respondent no.2 (annexure no.1). iii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to run their food grain shops. iv. To issue any other writ, order or direction or grant such other and further relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. v. An order for costs in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts, as emerge out from the record, are that the petitioners have formed a Society under the Societies Registration Act and they have been issued certificate to that effect. The petitioners have been supplying food grains to the ration-card holders. It is asserted that the ration-card holders never made any complaint against the petitioners either in respect of distribution system or any other irregularity. Vide Govt. 2 orders an Screening Committee was set up to inquire about the functioning of the shops of food grains to which licence was given by the Government in respect of public distribution system. The Scrutinee Committee submitted a recommendation/ report to the District Supply Officer, Nainital who vide order dated 26.06.1992 cancelled licence of the petitioners. The petitioner filed Writ Petition before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court and on the directions of the High Court, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commissioner. In the meantime the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar passed an order on 27.03.1999 whereby licences of the petitioners have been cancelled. Again the petitioners filed Writ Petition no. 21212 of 1999 before Allahabad High Court in which the Commissioner was directed to decide appeal of the petitioners and in the meantime order dated 27.03.1999 passed by respondent no.3 was stayed. The Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital vide order dated 29.09.1992 rejected the appeal No. 35/8 of 1998-99 of the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 26.06.1992 passed by District Supply Officer, Nainital. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Ram Ji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 4. Mr. Ram Ji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the Screening Committee never visited the shops in question. He submitted that the District Supply Officer committed mistake in cancelling the licence of the shops of the petitioners merely on the ground that the Society 3 was not fulfilling the required standard. He further submitted that show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 12.05.1992 to which the petitioners filed their explanation, but their reply was not considered. Rather the respondents have held that cause shown was not satisfactory because the Society had not submitted the constitution and Byelaws of the Society, process of their meetings, appointment of salesman and audit of profit. 5. Mr. Ram Ji Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the petitioners argued that there is no mention in the show cause notice about black marketing or illegality in supply of essential commodities. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that had there been irregularities committed by the petitioner in respect of distribution of essential commodities, the respondents would have mentioned those irregularities in the show cause notice, rather the show cause notice is silent about any irregularity. He submitted that explanation/reply given to the show cause notice was not, at all, considered by the Supply Officer and the order passed on 26.06.1992 is not said to be a reasoned order. He further argued that licence of the petitioners has been cancelled due to improper constitution of the Society and irregularities in respect of the functions of the Society but the Supply Officer was not competent to look into this aspect i.e. constitution of the Committee as for the last 20 years, the registration of the Society has not been cancelled by the Competent Authority. 6. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that licence was not given to the petitioners in their individual capacity but it were given to a Society and the Society denied in making 4 its audit. He further submitted that, in fact, the Society was being used by an individual who was looking after the shops in question. He further submitted that the conduct of the petitioners’ Society was not fair as even the Society did not submit audit/financial status of the Society or the papers showing the profit accrued from the fair price shops. He also submitted that, in fact, in past also, the petitioners Society committed irregularities for which the card holders, who were attached to their Society, were attached to another shop. 7. From perusal of order impugned it makes obvious that the order passed by the respondent no.3 cannot be said to be a reasoned order, even reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not considered. The impugned order pertains to the year 1992, thereafter much water is flown. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 29.09.1999 and 26.06.1992 passed by respondent no.2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also seeing the fact that matter is twenty years old, liberty is given to the District Supply Officer concerned, to reconsider the case afresh, but in case, the Supply Officer thinks it proper to pass any order against the petitioners, he will provide adequate opportunity to the petitioners. 9. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 30.07.2010 NCM: