IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 74 of 2011 Vinod S/o Shri Shyam Lal, R/o Village Naitwala Saidabad, Tehsil Laksar, District Hardwar. …….…….. Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Garhwal, Camp Dehradun. 2. Up Zila Adhikari, Laksar, District Hardwar. .….............. Respondents Present: Mr. Lok Pal Singh and Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocates for the appellant. Mr.Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date: 17th November, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) A complaint was lodged against the appellant, where it was contended that the appellant is not discharging his obligations pertaining to the licence accorded to him to run the fair price shop of the appellant. The said complaint was inquired by Naib Tehsildar, Laksar and Supply Inspector, Laksar. They submitted an inquiry report, wherein it was indicated that the appellant, in course of running his fair price shop on the basis of the said licence, is guilty of misbehaviour. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, whereby the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why his licence shall not be cancelled for the charges levelled against him as indicated in the said show cause. Appellant gave a reply thereto. The charges, thus, framed and reply given thereto were not thereupon inquired by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, instead he purported to uphold the inquiry report which was prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, Laksar and Suply Inspector, 2 Laksar, which report came to existence without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The Sub Divisional Magistrate thereupon, by the order impugned before the appellate authority, cancelled the said licence of the appellant. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal holding that the allegations, emanating from the said report, do not justify continuation of the licence of the appellant. 2. The fact remains that by acting in the manner as above, the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as the appellate authority failed to discharge their obligation of following the principles of natural justice. The fact remains that in view of the said licence, appellant has become a fair price shop dealer and his livelihood is dependant thereon. In order to put the same to rest, it was obligatory to establish that the appellant has failed to discharge his obligations pertaining to the licence. Such failure could only be established by holding an inquiry on the allegations against the appellant in his presence and not on the basis of a report may be made by two government officers but not in the presence of the appellant. 3. The said actions on the part of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the appellate authority were assailed before this Court by filing a writ petition. By the judgment and order under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court has held that there is no scope of interference, inasmuch as, the inquiry was conducted by competent authority. The learned Judge failed to take note of the fact that the inquiry said to have been conducted, was conducted behind the back of the appellant and, accordingly, the said inquiry, even if it has been conducted by competent authority, is of no value in the eye of law. 4. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and at the same time quash the orders impugned in the writ petition. We hope and expect that the 3 authorities concerned shall now discharge their obligations in accordance with law and shall decide upon the charge sheet issued to the appellant after considering his reply on the basis of evidence to be brought on record in the presence of the appellant. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 17.11.2011 17.11.2011 P. Singh