Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by respondent no.3 whereby his Fair Price Shop license was cancelled and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by respondent no.2 whereby his appeal was also rejected.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no finding given against the petitioner in the impugned order of respondent no.3. Learned counsel for petitioner brings attention of the Court to the fact that the impugned order notes that every card-holder was distributed 750/- grams of sugar as was prescribed, however after noting the same the order again notes that since petitioner has caused serious irregularity as he has not distributed 750/- grams of sugar. Further attention is drawn to the fact that there is no finding given that petitioner actually has not distributed 750/- grams of sugar to every card-holder. In absence of any such finding, the observation made in the impugned order cannot stand. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the allegations were made by few persons on behalf of gram pradhan that kerosin oil was being sold at higher rate as he has refused the village pradhan the excess supply of kerosin oil in an illegal manner. Learned counsel for petitioner states that there is no finding recorded in the entire order that petitioner had charged any extra money for any supply of kerosin oil. On the other hand, the entire burden is shifted upon the petitioner to file affidavits of the villagers to show that he has been working properly. The impugned order further notes that the shop was closed on 07.05.2011 and on the said date the rate list was not displayed. Learned counsel for petitioner states that even presuming the said allegation to be correct, merely because the shop was not open on a particular date for some time the same cannot be a ground for passing such a stringent order against the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel states that the charges against the petitioner are serious and he ought to have filed evidence in support of his case by producing the affidavits of the villagers.
Having heard counsels for both the parties and perusing the order dated 26.07.2011, I find that the finding with regard to distribution of sugar on the face of it is perverse and the authorities have not made any discussion as to how they found that every card-holder was not distributed 750/- grams of sugar. Similarly, there is no finding referred to in the impugned order that petitioner had ever charged excess money for the kerosin oil. Merely because the shop was closed at a particular time on 07.05.2011 the same itself cannot be a ground for which the license of the shop should be cancelled. The appellate authority has also, without adding any further finding to it, rejected the appeal in a summary manner.
Looking in the entirety of the matter, I find both the impugned orders i.e. order dated 26.07.2011 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by respondent no.2 are not sustainable and are set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Arti/-
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)