IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1328 OF 2008(MS) Mahavir Singh Chauhan …………..Petitioner. Versus Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Camp at Dehradun. ……….Respondents. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 to 3. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the intervener. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 to 3 and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the intervener. The petitioner is a fair-price shop dealer who, under a licence given by the Government, runs a fair-price shop at Village Telpura, Block Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. On 8.10.2007, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner by the concerned Supply Inspector under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegations against the petitioner were that five quintals of sugar, which were given to the petitioner for distribution to the Ration-Card holders of the fair-price shop were being transported by a buggy in order that the same may be sold in a black-market. All the same, this buggy was caught by the villagers and the food-grains were given to the Police and thereafter an FIR was lodged against the petitioner. Consequently, vide order dated 11.10.2007 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, the licence of the fair- price shop of the petitioner was suspended and the Ration-card holders, who were getting their food-grains 2 from this particular shop of the petitioner, were attached to another neighbouring fair-price shop dealer. The petitioner was given a show cause notice in which certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. Apart from the charges of diversion of five quintals of sugar in black- market as alleged in the FIR, there were other charges that the petitioner was not giving rice to the required primary schools, where it had to be distributed as “Mid- day Meal” and was diverting it elsewhere. There was another charge against the petitioner that whereas the petitioner was only entitled to give 700 Grams of sugar to one unit, but had shown that he had actually given one kilogram instead for each unit. There were also charges that the “stock register” and the “distribution register” are not being properly maintained and the requisite entries are not there in the register, and when the petitioner was asked to show this register, he was found cutting corners. The petitioner gave his reply to each charges and the Sub Divisional Magistrate after considering the reply of the petitioner was of the opinion that all the charges against the petitioner are made out, and thereafter, the licence of the petitioner to run the fair-price shop was cancelled vide order dated 16.2.2008. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 16.2.2008, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner vide its order dated 19.3.2008 stayed the operation of the order dated 16.2.2008. The petitioner now contends that when the cancellation order was itself stayed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate should have allowed the petitioner to run his fair-price shop, however, it was not done and the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 27.3.2008, 3 whereby he said that although the cancellation order has been stayed, but since the suspension order has not been stayed, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to run the fair-price shop. This contention of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is absolutely misconceived as the order of suspension has, in fact, merged with the order of cancellation and in all fairness, the Sub Divisional Magistrate should have allowed the petitioner to run the fair-price shop. To that extent, the petitioner is correct. However, this is not the major issue before this Court. The fact of the matter is that on 24.7.2008, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. Against this order, the petitioner had filed present writ petition before this Court, in which by the learned Single Judge of this Court, an interim order was granted to the petitioner on 4.8.2008, whereby the order dated 16.2.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as the order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner were stayed. But an important fact, which must be considered at this stage, is that before the interim order could be passed by this Court, the Gram Sabha of the concerned Village unanimously passed a resolution that the fair- price shop now be given to one Sri Kamal Singh (who is the intervener in the present writ petition). As these proceedings were on, no action was taken on the said proposal of the Gram Sabha and the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not act upon this resolution as the matter was pending before different Courts. It was only done when the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2008 and on 29th July, 2008, the Sub Divisional Magistrate finally passed an order in favour of the intervener and the licence to run 4 the fair-price shop was granted to the intervener in place of the present petitioner. This was done well before the interim order was passed on 4.8.2008. It is settled position of law that the interim orders are only applicable from the date it actually comes to the knowledge of the person, who has to make the compliance. Evidently, since the order of allocation of the shop had already been done in favour of the intervener Mr. Kamal Singh, the interim order of this Court dated 4.8.2008 could not be implemented. Moreover, the petitioner has, in fact, not challenged the allocation of the fair-price shop in favour of Mr. Kamal Singh-intervener. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed a detail order on 13th August, 2008 only after the order of this Court, whereby the Ration-card holders of the entire village were equally distributed for two fair-price shops, half in favour of the petitioner and other half in favour of the intervener- Kamal Singh. At this stage, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court, in which the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate was summoned and consequently, the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 9.12.2009 recalled his earlier order dated 13.8.2008 and directed all the Ration-card holders of the concerned village to take food-grains from the shop of the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was reverted to his earlier position which was prior to suspension of his fair-price shop licence. After hearing the arguments of Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 to 3 and Mr. Lok Pal 5 Singh, learned counsel for the intervener and from the perusal of the charges, it is clear that the licence of the fair-price shop of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of charges, which are extremely serious in nature. There is a charge that the petitioner was diverting the food-grains towards black-market and also a charge that the petitioner was not giving the food-grains to the primary schools, where it was to be distributed as “Mid- day Meal”. These are serious issues. The findings of the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority are against the petitioner on these issues. The contention of the petitioner is that these charges are not made out against him as in the criminal proceedings the Final Report has been filed and accepted by the Magistrate. This Court has also examined the order of the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in its order dated 31.5.2008 has totally relied upon the police report, where a superficial examination of the charges has been made out. Nothing in detail has been examined. No witnesses or documents or any other relevant material have been examined by the Court. Moreover, the Magistrate itself has come to the conclusion that at least by the accounts submitted in the report of the police and the verification of the fair-price shop, there was shortage of at least one quintal of sugar. Nothing at all has been said about the improper keeping of the record and the relevant entries which have not been made by the petitioner in the stock register and the distribution register, which was the liability of the petitioner. On these counts, the order of the learned Magistrate will not be of much help for the petitioner. This court is of the opinion that these two proceedings are absolutely different. The proceeding before the Magistrate is 6 regarding diversion of five quintals of sugar in black- market. There are other charges as well, such as the food-grains not being given to the primary schools for distribution as “Mid-day Meal”, improper keeping of records etc. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the charges/anomalies against the petitioner are established and his licence for running the fair-price shop was rightly cancelled. There is no anomaly in the order dated 16.2.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. There is also no illegality in allocation of the shop to the intervener-Kamal Singh inasmuch as the same was done only after the petitioner has lost from the appellate Court. Moreover, this allocation has been done consequent to the resolution of the Gram Sabha. Moreover, the validity of the allocation of the shop to the intervener is not an issue before this Court. The Writ Petition itself has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.12.2009 Rathour