M/S Mohammad Nawaj v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34182 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Mohammad Nawaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Satyawan Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prateek Kumar,Ravi Kumar Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by Sri Prateek Kumar alongwith Sri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of subsequent allottee before this Court, the same is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava alongwith Sri Satyavan Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prateek Kumar alongwith Sri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of subsequent allottee and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents.

¶3The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:- "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2/the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut arising out of Case No. 00747 of 2019, Pratibha Rani Vs. State of U.P.; Computerized Case No. C201911000000747 as well as impugned order dated

15.01.2019 passed by respondent no. 3/District Supply Officer, Meerut."

¶4It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 15.01.2019 passed by District Supply Officer, Meerut on the ground that a First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner under section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act 1955. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, an appeal being Case No. 00758/2019 filed by the petitioner which was rejected by respondent no. 2/Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut on 11.09.2019. Aggrieved against the aforesaid the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled in violation of the provisions contained under the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 as well as provisions contained under the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016. He next submitted that no preliminary enquiry has been conducted in the matter and the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on misconceived grounds. He submitted that lodging of First Information Report under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act 1955 can not be a ground for the suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop licence unless there is proper enquiry in the matter He placed the reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in Misc. Single No. 8033 of 2013. D/d. 26.10.2017 Bajrangi Tiwari Vs. The Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Another in order to demonstrate that on the ground of lodging first information report, fair price shop licence cannot be cancelled in which following questions were referred to the Full Bench which reads as follows:- "1. Whether the fair price shop licence can be cancelled merely on lodging of a criminal case against the licencee?; and

¶2Whether, while passing any such order the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, particularly para-10 of said Government Order would be applicable/considered or not?"

¶6The answers of the aforesaid questions have been given by the Full Bench which reads as follows:-

(i) The answer is no. Licence of a fair price shop cannot be cancelled merely on lodging of FIR against the licencee.

(ii) The answer is no. The Government order dated 17.8.2002 relates to allotment of a fair price shop and hence the same cannot be referred to in suspension/cancellation of licence. It is the Government order dated 29.7.2014 according to which the suspension/cancellation of a fair price shop licence can take place.

¶7He submitted that in view of the violation of the mandatory provisions contained under the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 and the Control Order, 2016 the impugned orders can not be sustained and are liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶8It is argued that a writ petition was filed by one Amit Kumar being Writ C No.2029 of 2022 (Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court and this Court taking into consideration the order passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bajrangi Tiwari (supra) allowed the writ petition vide order dated

11.09.2024 holding therein that fair price shop license could not be cancelled merely on the ground of lodging of F.I.R. under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. The order dated 11.09.2024 reads as follows:-

¶1Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravindra Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was granted a licence for fair price shop and petitioner was running the fair price shop since long. Proceeding against the petitioner was initiated and the licence of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 26.12.2018. Appeal filed by petitioner against the cancellation order dated 26.12.2018 was also dismissed vide order dated

4.3.2021. Hence, this writ petition is filed for following reliefs:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.03.2021 passed by Joint Commissioner Food Saharanpur in appeal no.93/2020-21 and 94/2020-21 and order dated

26.12.2018 and 1.9.2018 passed by District Supply Inspector Muzaffar Nagar.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent authorities to restore the fare price shop license in favour of the petitioner.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶3This Court vide order dated 11.02.2022 entertained the matter and directed the State to file counter affidavit.

¶4In pursuance of the order dated 11.02.2022 the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled in violation of the provisions contained under the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 as well as provisions contained under the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016. He next submitted that no preliminary enquiry has been conducted in the matter and the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on mis-conceived grounds. He submitted that lodging of First Information Report under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act 1955 can not be a ground for the suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop licence unless there is proper enquiry in the matter He placed the reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in Misc. Single No. 8033 of 2013. D/d. 26.10.2017 Bajrangi Tiwari Vs. The Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Another in order to demonstrate that on the ground of lodging first information report, fair price shop licence cannot be cancelled. He submitted that in view of the violation of the mandatory provisions contained under the Government Order dated

05.08.2019 and the Control Order, 2016 the impugned orders can not be sustained and are liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶6Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and it has been found that there was irregularity on the part of the petitioner regarding distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, as such licence of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. He submitted that criminal proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and the First Information Report has been lodged under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code as such no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶7I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was granted fair price shop licence by the Authorities. There is also no dispute about the fact that under the impugned order, the petitioner's licence has been cancelled and the appeal has also been dismissed.

¶9In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter a perusal of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019, which is applicable to Rural and Urban Area in respect to the suspension/cancellation of the fair price shop licence will be necessary which is as under: पቚኔषक, ओम पककाश वमकार, ववशቚኔष सवचिव, उ्ቈर पदቚኔश शकासन। सቚኔवका मम, 1-आययक, खका्ቕ एववं रसद ववभकाग, उ०प०। 2-समस्त जजिलकाजधिककारर, उ्ቈर पदቚኔश। 3-समस्त जजिलका पपूवतर अजधिककारर, उ्ቈर पदቚኔश। खका्ቕ एववं रसद अनयभकाग-6 लखनऊः‌वदनांक‌05oअगस् त,o2019 ववषयः‌गामीण‌एवं‌शहरी‌+ेኔतቔ ‌की‌उवचि त‌दर‌की‌दकानोሪ ‌केኔ ‌वनलम् बन /वनरस् तीकरण‌एवंु सम् बदीकरण‌केኔ ‌सम् बन् धि ‌मम‌पवकኌ या‌का‌वनधि ार ण। महोदय, र र र रउपयकु ‌ववषयक‌लव+त‌सावजि वनक‌ववतरण‌पणाली‌केኔ ‌अन् तगत‌काय त‌उवचि त‌दर‌दकु ानोሪ ‌केኔ ववरू द‌पा् ‌वशकायतोሪ ‌की‌जि ांचि ‌एवं‌तत् कኌ म‌मम‌उनकेኔ ‌ववरु द‌संपावदत‌की‌जि ानेኔ‌वाली‌कायरवावहयोሪ यथा‌वनलम् बन,oवनरस् तीकरण‌एवं‌सम् बदीकरण‌केኔ ‌सम् बन् धि ‌मम‌समय-समय‌पर‌वववभ्ቐ ‌शासनादेኔशोሪ केኔ ‌माध् यम‌सेኔ‌वनदkश‌पसाररत‌वकयेኔ‌गयेኔ‌ह।ह ‌वतरमान‌मम‌लागू‌राष्ीय‌खादቕ ‌सुर+ा‌अजधि वनयम-2013 मएवं‌तत् कኌ म‌म‌जि ारी‌उ्ቈ र‌पदेኔश‌आवश् यक‌वस् तु‌ (ववकኌ य‌एवं‌ववतरण‌वनयंतቔ ण‌का‌वववनयमन) आदेኔश-2016oतथा‌उ्ቈ र‌पदेኔश‌खादቕ ‌सुर+ा‌वनयमावली-2015oकेኔ ‌पख् यापन‌तथा‌लाभाजथरयोሪ ‌को आवश् यक‌वस् तुओं‌केኔ ‌ववतरण‌मम‌तकनीकी‌अनुपयोग‌(पबबलक‌पोटरल‌पर‌सम् बद‌लाभाजथरयोሪ ‌का ऑनलाइन‌पदशरन‌एवं‌तद् नुसार‌आवंटन‌का‌सृजि न‌तथा‌ई०पी०ओ०एस०‌मशीनोሪ ‌केኔ ‌माध् यम‌सेኔ करायेኔ‌जि ा‌रहेኔ‌ववतरण)oतथा‌डोर‌स् टेኔप‌वडलीवरी‌का‌कायर‌पचि जलत‌होनेኔ‌केኔ ‌दृ वषगत‌पूवर‌मम‌वनगरत ह र म रसमस् त‌शासनादेኔशोሪ ‌को‌अवकኌ वमत‌करतेኔ‌हयेኔ‌वतमान‌पररदृ श् य‌म‌वनम् नवत‌व् यवस् था‌वनवदष‌वकयेኔ जि ानेኔ‌का‌मुझेኔ‌वनदेኔश‌हहआ‌ह:ै -1-oउवचि त‌दर‌दकु ानोሪ ‌केኔ ‌ववरू द‌पा् ‌वशकायतोሪ ‌की‌जि ांचि -

(1)oउवचि त‌दर‌ववकኌ ेኔ ताओं‌केኔ ‌ववरू द‌सामान् यतया‌आवश् यक‌वस् तुएएँ‌पा् ‌न‌होनेኔ ,oववकኌ ेኔ ता‌दारा घटतौली‌वकयेኔ‌जि ानेኔ ,oअजधि क‌मल्ू य‌जलयेኔ‌जि ानेኔ,oएवं‌सूचि ी‌मम‌नाम‌न‌होनेኔ‌का‌बहाना‌बनाकर खादቕ ा्ቐ ‌न‌देኔनेኔ,oई-पपॉ स‌मशीन‌मम‌नेኔटवकर ‌न‌आनेኔ‌सवर ‌डाउन‌होनेኔ‌का‌बहाना‌बनाकर‌खादቕ ा्ቐ ववतरण‌केኔ ‌पूवर‌ही‌बायोमेኔवट्क‌पमाणीकरण‌कराकर‌लाभाजथरयोሪ ‌को‌वास् तव‌मम‌खादቕ ा्ቐ ‌न‌देኔकर कालाबाजि ारी‌कर‌लेኔनेኔ‌तथा‌यूवनट‌केኔ ‌सापेኔ+‌कम‌खादቕ ा्ቐ ‌देኔनेኔ ,oकाडर‌मम‌दजि र‌यूवनटोሪ ‌केኔ ‌सापेኔ+ कम‌यूवनट‌केኔ ‌आधि ार‌फीड‌होनेኔ‌का‌आधि ार‌लेኔकर‌शेኔष‌यवू नटोሪ ‌का‌खादቕ ा्ቐ ‌न‌देኔनेኔ ,oउपभोकाओं सेኔ‌दव् यरवहार‌करनेኔ,oसमय‌सेኔ‌दकान‌न‌खोलनेኔ,oआवश् यक‌सूचि नाओं‌का‌पदशरन‌न‌करनेኔ,oआवदु ु वशकायतम‌पा् ‌होती‌ह।ै ‌वशकायत‌मुख् यतः‌मा०‌मुख् यमंतቔ ी‌हेኔल् प‌लाइन,oववभागीय‌टोल‌फी‌नम् बर कपॉ ल‌सेኔन् टर,oआई०जि ी०आर०एस०,oतहसील‌वदवस,oउप‌जजि लाजधि कारी,oजजि ला‌पूवतर‌अजधि कारी, जजि लाजधि कारी,oमण् डलायकु ,oखादቕ ायकु ‌एवं‌शासन‌पर‌जलजखत‌मम‌डाक‌दारा,oव् यवकगत‌रू प‌सेኔ‌एवं दरू भाष‌पर‌पा् ‌होती‌ह।ह ‌वशकायतकतार‌मुख् यतः‌तीन‌पकार‌केኔ ‌हो‌सकतेኔ‌हह,oयथा‌वववशष‌व् यवक, सम् बबन् धि त‌उवचि त‌दर‌ववकኌ ेኔ ता‌सेኔ‌सम् बद‌काडरधि ारक‌एवं‌सम् बबन् धि त‌उवचि त‌दर‌ववकኌ ेኔ ता‌सेኔ‌सम् बद र मलाभाजथयोሪ ‌सेኔ‌वभ्ቐ ‌अन् य‌शोत/व् यवकयोሪ ‌केኔ ‌स् तर‌सेኔ‌पा् ‌वशकायत।

(2)oउपरोकानुसार‌पा् ‌होनेኔ‌वाली‌वशकायतोሪ ‌पर‌कायरवाही‌जि ाएँचि ‌केኔ ‌सम् बन् धि ‌मम‌वनम् नवत‌पवकኌ या अपनायी‌जि ायेኔ-

(क)oवववशष‌व् यवकयोሪ ‌सेኔ‌पा् ‌वशकायती‌पतቔ ोሪ ‌केኔ ‌सम् बन् धि ‌मम‌कायरवाही‌आरम् भ‌करनेኔ‌सेኔ‌पूवर सम् बबन् धि त‌वववशष‌व् यवक‌को‌पतቔ ‌भेኔजि कर‌यह‌पुवष‌कर‌ली‌जि ाय‌वक‌पतቔ ‌उन् हीሻ ‌केኔ ‌दारा हस् ता+ररत‌ह‌ै और‌वशकायतोሪ ‌केኔ ‌सम् बन् धि ‌मम‌उनको‌समाधि ान‌हो‌गया‌वक‌वशकायतम‌तथ् योሪ ‌पर आधि ाररत‌ह।ह

(ख)oसम् बबन् धि त‌उवचि त‌दर‌ववकኌ ेኔ ता‌सेኔ‌सम् बद‌काडरधि ारकोሪ ‌केኔ ‌स् तर‌सेኔ‌पा् ‌वशकायतोሪ ‌पर‌कायरवाही रसेኔ‌पूव‌वशकायतोሪ ‌की‌पारबम् भक‌जि ाएँचि ‌की‌जि ाए।‌उवचि त‌दर‌दकु ानोሪ ‌केኔ ‌ववरू द‌जि ाएँचि ‌पवकኌ या‌केኔ दौरान‌ववकኌ ेኔ ता‌दारा‌ई-पपॉ स‌केኔ ‌माध् यम‌सेኔ‌वकयेኔ‌गयेኔ‌ववतरण‌का‌वववरण‌(एम०आई०एस०‌ररपोटर) जि ो‌पबबलक‌पोटरल‌पर‌उपलबधि ‌है,oका‌संजान‌अवश् य‌जलया‌जि ाय।‌ववकኌ ेኔ ता‌दारा‌पदवशरत‌ववतरण का‌वमलान‌काडरधि ारकोሪ ‌केኔ ‌राशन‌काडर‌मम‌दकु ानदारोሪ ‌दारा‌की‌गयी‌पवववषयोሪ ‌सेኔ‌भी‌वकया‌जि ा सकता‌ह।ै ‌साथ‌ही‌वशकायतकतार‌व‌अन् य‌सम् बबन् धि त‌प+ोሪ ‌का‌कथन‌अंवकत‌करतेኔ‌समय‌उनका पवतपरी+ण‌भी‌अवश् य‌वकया‌जि ायेኔ‌तावक‌जि ाएँचि ‌कायरवाही‌की‌वनष् प+ता‌पथम‌दृ षया‌स् थावपत‌हो एवं‌अनावश् यक‌जलवटगेኔशन‌की‌बस् थवत‌उत् प्ቐ ‌न‌हो।‌ (ग)oअन् य‌सोतोሪ /व् यवकयोሪ ‌सेኔ‌पा् ‌वशकायतोሪ केኔ ‌सम् बन् धि ‌मम‌यवद‌वशकायती‌पतቔ ‌शपथ‌पतቔ ‌सेኔ‌समजथरत‌नहीሻ ‌है ,oतो‌वशकायतकतार‌सेኔ‌इस‌बार‌ेኔ मम एक‌शपथ‌पतቔ ‌उपलबधि ‌करानेኔ‌को‌कहा‌जि ाए‌और‌शपथ‌पतቔ ‌पा् ‌होनेኔ‌केኔ ‌उपरान् त‌ही‌आगेኔ‌की रकायवाही‌की‌जि ाए।

(घ)oउवचि त‌दर‌ववकኌ ेኔ ता‌केኔ ‌ववरू द‌वकसी‌एक‌या‌अत् यन् त‌अल् प‌संख् या‌मम‌उपभोकाओं‌दारा‌उवचि त दर‌ववकኌ ेኔ ता‌की‌दकु ान‌पर‌जि ानेኔ‌केኔ ‌बावजि ूद‌अपना‌अनुमन् य‌खादቕ ा्ቐ ‌पा् ‌न‌होनेኔ‌की‌बस् थवत‌मम‌वेኔ अपनी‌वशकायत‌जजि ला‌वशकायत‌वनवारण‌अजधि कारी‌केኔ ‌सम+‌भी‌दजि र‌करा‌सकतेኔ‌हह,oजि ो‌वनधि ार रत हपवकኌ या‌का‌पालन‌करतेኔ‌हए‌पकरण‌केኔ ‌परी+णोपरान् त‌उसकी‌वनयमानुसार‌हकदारी /खादቕ ‌सुर+ा भ्ቈ ा‌वदलाया‌जि ाना‌सुवनबश् चि त‌करगम ेኔ।"

¶10A perusal of the Government Order as quoted above fully demonstrates that preliminary inquiry is to be conducted by the Authorities before suspension/cancellation of the fair price shop licence of the licence holder.

¶11Perusal of the aforesaid Government Order dated 05.08.2019 as well as impugned orders and other evidence on record reveals that procedure prescribed under the Government Order has not been followed by the authority and the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that first information report has been lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. In full Bench judgment of this Court in Bajrangi Tiwari (Supra) it has been clearly held that fair price shop can not be cancelled merely on the ground of lodging criminal case.

¶12Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Bajrangi Tiwari (Supra) impugned order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 and appellate order dated 4.3.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

¶13The writ petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to restore the fair price shop licence of the petitioner forthwith.

¶14No order as to costs.

¶9The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by one Mohd. Amir by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25501 of 2024 (Mohd. Amir Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the aforesaid S.LP. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.04.2025. The order dated 21.04.2025 reads as follows:-

¶1We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

¶2Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶10On the other hand, it is argued by Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Subsequent allottee that the subsequent allottee is entitled for hearing in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the Case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (2022 AIR (SC) 4705). He also placed reliance upon the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court dated 02.01.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 577 of 2025. Apart from the aforesaid it is stated in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid affidavit that at the time of allotment of the shop in question an affidavit was filed by the applicant on 11.09.2020, copy of which is appended as Annexure SA -2 to the supplementary affidavit. In Paragraph no. 7 of the aforesaid affidavit it is clearly stated that the fair price shop license was allotted in his favour will be subject to the final outcome of the decision taken by the Appellate Authority or by any competent court of law and the petitioner will not claim any entitlement in this regards. Paragraph 7 of the said affidavit reads as follows:- " ररवक कቚኔ सकापቚኔकका यवद मቚኔरका चियन उवचित दर ववቅኌቚኔतका कቚኔ रूप मम हहोतका हह तहो उक वनययवक मका० उच्चि इलकाहकाबकाद न्यकायकालय / मका० न्यकायकालय सवंययक आययक (खका्ቕ) मቚኔरठ मण्डल मቚኔरठ कቚኔ वनणरय कቚኔ आधिरन हहोगर। यवद मका० न्यकायकालय दकारका पपूवर दयककान बहकाल ककी जिकातर तहो मह अपनर स्वቚኔच्छका सቚኔ उवचित दर ववቅኌቚኔतका कቚኔ रूप मम अपनका दकावका पस्तयत नहर करूगर तथका उवचित दर दयककान कቚኔ अनयबन्धि प्ቔ कका स्वत: वनरस्तरकरण मयझቚኔ स्वरककार हहोगका।"

¶11In response to the same learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner argued that after cancellation of fair price shop license of the petitioner a public notice dated 25.08.2020 was issued in which it is clearly stated that any appointment made pursuant to the aforesaid would be subject to the final outcome of any litigation initiated by the erstwhile agent. He further argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court in exactly similar controversy where the S.L.P. was filed by the subsequent allotee, took a strict view and dismissed the Special Leave to Petition (Civil) Diary No. 50987 of 2024 (Ankush Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) filed by one such subsequent allottee namely Ankush Kumar. Order reads as follows:- "Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petition is allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner had executed the affidavit dated 16th July, 2019 which on page no. 23 of the counter affidavit. The petitioner had given an undertaking that he has taken the license subject to the outcome of the writ petition filed by the private respondent and that in case the license of the private respondent is restored by the court, he will not claim as a fair price seller and his contract shall stand automatically cancelled. This material document has been suppress by the petitioner. Hence, no case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of."

¶12In this view of the matter, it is argued that though the petitioner is a subsequent allottee but in view of undertaking given by him by way of affidavit and also in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of Ankush Kumar (Supra) he is not entitled for relief or hearing in the matter.

¶13Sofaras the argument as raised by the subsequent allottee is concerned, as stated above, an undertaking was given by him at the time of his initial appointment. Apart from the same Special Leave to Petition (Civil) Diary No. 50987 of 2025 filed by one of the subsequent allottee namely Ankush Kumar has already been rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 31.01.2025. In this view of the matter, a prayer has been made by the subsequent allottee the impugned orders are liable to be rejected.

¶14Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and it has been found that there was irregularity on the part of the petitioner regarding distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, as such licence of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. He submitted that criminal proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and the First Information Report has been lodged under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, as such no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶15I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16Since pure question of law is involved in the present writ petition as such with the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

¶17There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was granted fair price shop licence by the Authorities and the same has been cancelled on the ground that a First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner under section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act 1955, against which appeal has been filed and the same has also been dismissed.

¶18A perusal of the Government Order as quoted above fully demonstrates that preliminary inquiry is to be conducted by the Authorities before suspension/cancellation of the fair price shop licence of the licence holder, which is missing in this case.

¶19Perusal of the aforesaid Government Order dated 05.08.2019 as well as impugned orders and other evidence on record reveals that procedure prescribed under the Government Order has not been followed by the authority and the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that first information report has been lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Act. In full Bench judgment of this Court in Bajrangi Tiwari (Supra) it has been clearly held that fair price shop license can not be cancelled merely on the ground of lodging of criminal case.

¶20Apart from the same, very recently a detailed judgement has been delivered by this Court in bunch of cases leading Writ C No. 38609 of 2019 (M/S Sajid Vs. State of U.P. and 2 other) along-with 21 connected writ petitions on 10.06.2025. Against which several Special Leave Petitions were filed by the subsequent allottees, which was numbered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).34331 of 2025 (Farhana Vs. State of U.P.) was filed before the Apex Court, which were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgement and order dated

03.07.2025. The order dated 03.07.2025 reads as follows :- "1. Permission to file SLP(s) is granted.

¶2Delay condoned.

¶3Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s).

¶4We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

¶5Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶21This fact is also admitted by the counsel for the parties.

¶22The Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bajrangi Tiwari (Supra) held that license of fair price shop cannot be cancelled merely on the ground of lodging criminal case. The aforesaid law has been again reaffirmed by this Court in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Amir (supra) as well as in the case of M/s Sajid (supra) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by Farhana (supra).

¶23In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the fair price shop licence/agreement could not be cancelled on the ground of registration of F.I.R. under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.

¶24In this view of the matter, impugned order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3/District Supply Officer, Meerut & order dated 11.09.2019 passed by respondent no. 2/Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

¶25The writ petition is allowed and the concerned-respondents are directed to restore the fair price shop licence of the petitioner forthwith. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Arti High Court of Judicature at Allahabad