The Court directed that because no illegality was committed by the respondent authority in canceling the license of the petitioner of fair price shop, the present petition of renewing that license was accordingly dismissed.
Background
The present petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had prayed for relief to allow this present petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other such appropriate writ, order, or direction and quash the order dated 27-05-2015 passed by District Supplier Officer, Vadodara; order dated 03-10-2015 passed by Ld. Collector, Vadodara and an order dated 24-06-2019 passed by Ld. Deputy Secretary, Gandhinagar in the interest of justice. It had been prayed that till the final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay these orders and also direct Respondent No.3 to renew the license of the petitioner running by Tejeshwini Mahila Mandli at shop No.139 Vijaynagar, Harni Road, Vadodara in the larger interest of justice.
Submissions before the Court
Petitioner’s Submissions
It was submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the concerned respondent authority had issued the license in favor of the petitioner for running a fair price shop. It was submitted that the said license was renewed lastly up to 31.12.2013 and though the license wasn’t renewed, the respondent authority had provided the essential commodities to the petitioner. On 17.1.2015, during a surprise checking, certain illegalities were found at the petitioner’s fair price shop, and henceforth, the initial license of the petitioner was suspended for 90 days. However, it was noticed that the petitioner was not having a valid license, so a show-cause notice was issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, notice under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act was also issued.
It was further submitted that the petitioner had submitted a reply before the respondent authority, contending that it was her first mistake and the said mistake, therefore, be pardoned. Thereafter, it was submitted that the respondent authority passed the impugned order dated 27.5.2015 by which the license of the petitioner was canceled. It had been contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as there was no valid license, therefore the petitioner wasn’t supposed to follow mandatory requirements of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. It was further submitted that the respondent authority wasn’t empowered to cancel the license as the petitioner was not having a valid license. It had therefore been urged that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.
Respondent’s Submissions
The learned AGP had submitted that during the surprise checking, it was found that the petitioner wasn’t holding any valid license for running the fair price shop. The license wasn’t renewed after 31.12.2013. Despite that, during the entire year of 2014, the petitioner had carried out the business unauthorizedly, and therefore, when it came to the notice of the concerned respondent authority, the license was canceled. Thus, no illegality had been committed by the respondent authorities and therefore this petition may not be entertained.
Learned AGP had also submitted that when there were three concurrent findings of facts, this Court may not interfere with the same while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consideration by Court
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and going through the material on record, the Court observed that the license was issued to the concerned Mandli in 2004 by which the said Mandli was permitted to run a fair price shop. It was clear that after 31.12.2013, the petitioner had not renewed the license of the fair price shop, despite that, she had carried out the business for the whole year 2014. During surprise checking, certain illegalities were found at the place of the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the competent authority had canceled the license of the petitioner. The Court had gone through the reasoning recorded by the respondent authorities while not entertaining the request of the petitioner. When the license itself wasn’t renewed after 31.12.2013, the petitioner wasn’t legally entitled to carry out her business. Despite that, by not disclosing the said fact to the concerned authority, the essential commodities were obtained.
Court’s Directions
There was a concurrent finding of facts recorded by all the authorities and hence, the scope of judicial review in such type of matters being very limited, the Court was of the view that no error or illegality as such was committed by the respondent authority while canceling the license of the petitioner which required any interference in the present petition. The present petition was accordingly dismissed.
Click here to read the judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
