1 W.P. No. 12135/2009 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 12135/2009 ......... Petitioner Indra Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar, Maryadit (A society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having Registration No. AR/SDL/875 dated 10.10.94) Through its President Vijay Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Deena Nath Shrivastava Aged about 35 years, R/o Amarkantak Road, Anuppur, District Annuppur. Versus ........ Respondents 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through its Secretary, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Commissioner, Food Civil Supplies Consumer Protection, Bhopal 3. Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol. 4. Collector, Anuppur, District Anuppur 5. District Supply Officer, Anuppur, District Anuppur ................................................................................................... Petitioner - Shri D.K. Dixit, Advocate. Respondents - Shri Harish Agnihotri, Govt. Advocate. ................................................................................................... 2 W.P. No. 12135/2009 O R D E R (13/01/2011) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) To call for the records from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) To quash the impugned order in Annexure P/31 by issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction. (iii) To restrain the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner whatsoever by issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction. (iv) To command the respondents to allow the petitioner society to operate the fair price shops as before by issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction. (v) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of the petitioner along with cost of this petition. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance to the order dated 11.7.09 (annexure P/27) passed by Commissioner, Food Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Bhopal, impugned order (annexure P/31) dated 22.10.09 has been passed by Collector cancelling the license of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, a show cause notice, Annexure P/29 dated 11th September, 2009 was given by respondent no.5 to the petitioner that why action should not be taken against him as 3 W.P. No. 12135/2009 per the Scheme of 1991 namely M.P. (Food Stuffs) Public Distribution Scheme, 1991. The petitioner against the show cause notice submitted reply on 3.10.09 submitting the details and it was prayed that the same may not be given effect to. Thereafter, the impugned order, annexure P/31 has been passed by respondent no.5 on 22.10.01. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that arbitrarily without assigning any reason, the impugned order has been passed. It is also put forth by him that even reply of the petitioner was not taken into account and on going through the order even the factum of submitting the reply has not been mentioned in the order. Hence, it has been prayed that impugned order be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the matter deserves to be sent back to the respondent no.5 to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 4 W.P. No. 12135/2009 6. On bare perusal of the impugned order, annexure P/31 dated 22.10.09, it is gathered that in view of the directions given by the Commissioner dated 11.7.09 (annexure P/27), the impugned order has been passed. On bare perusal of the order of Commissioner (annexure P/27) dated 11.7.09, nowhere it is gathered that petitioner was heard and he was given opportunity to put his case. Hence, according to me, whatever has been stated in order (annexure P/27) dated 11.7.09 by the Commissioner is not binding on the petitioner. The respondent no.5, although issued show cause notice to the petitioner (annexure P/29) dated 11th September, 2009 against which reply (annexure P/30) was also filed by the petitioner on 3.10.09 but without taking into account the submissions made in the reply and without making any summary enquiry, straightaway, a harsh decision to cancel the license of shop has been ordered by the District Supply Officer (respondent no.5). 7. On bare perusal of the impugned order, it is gathered that respondent no.5 has not even taken into account the reply of show cause notice and no enquiry was made and, therefore, according to me, the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain stand. The same is hereby quashed. Respondent no.5 is hereby directed to consider the facts 5 W.P. No. 12135/2009 mentioned in the reply of show cause notice submitted by the petitioner and after making summary enquiry, may pass fresh order without being influenced by the order of Commissioner dated 11.7.09 (annexure P/27) since it was passed in absence of the petitioner. 8. This petition is accordingly allowed. No costs (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 6 W.P. No. 12135/2009 W.P. No. 12135/09 13.01.2011 Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Although today the matter has been listed for further orders, however, learned counsel for the parties submit that petition itself be heard finally. Prayer accepted. Arguments heard. Order dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao