Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is a fair price shop licence holder. His licence has been cancelled on the allegations which are contained in the charge sheet dated 22nd March, 2011 and which have been allegedly found to be proved. The petitioner contends that he had submitted a detailed reply but the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 14th May, 2001 fails to take consideration either the evidence on record or the explanation of the petitioner as such aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed and the appellate order is also erroneous for the same reasons.
Sri Gupta has invited the attention of the Court to the grounds of appeal and also that part of the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate which has recorded the explanation given by the petitioner to the charges levelled against him. As an illustration Sri Gupta has invited attention of the Court to the fact of 45 Ration Cards indicating no endorsement of the supply of the essential commodities. In his reply the petitioner had submitted that in some of the cards the endorsement could not have been made due to the absence of photographs of the card holders. Sri Gupta contends that this aspect has been completely overlooked and the impugned order has been passed on a mere presumption without there being any further evidence.
Sri Gupta further contends that another charge was that the petitioner has not supplied sugar for the month of February 2001. The said charge has been clearly replied to and has also been raised as a ground of appeal in ground no.3. Neither the Sub Divisional Magistrate nor the appellate authority have even adverted to the said averments. The appellate order only records that after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner who was the appellant, there appears to have been a resolution passed by the administrative committee of the Gaon Sabha expressing displeasure against the petitioner and the same has been made the basis for dismissing the appeal. Sri Gupta contends that this could not have been a ground to cancel the licence and it can be done only on the charges framed and the evidence found in support thereof.
Learned counsel Sri B.G. Yadav for the then Gram Pradhan and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 both contends that the explanation of the petitioner has been considered and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. They further submit that the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the appellate authority have recorded findings of fact which do not requre any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is clear that the petitioner had raised clear grounds before the prescribed authority and had also submitted his explanation on 4th April, 2001 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Neither of them have adverted to the aforesaid explanation as narrated by the petitioner with regard to the submissions referred to hereinabove. In the opinion of the Court the findings, therefore, suffers from non consideration of relevant material and are therefore, perverse.
Accordingly, in my opinion the matter requires a reconsideration as such the impugned orders dated 14.5.2001 as affirmed in appeal on 25.10.2002 are both set aside and the matter shall stand remanded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area concerned for decision afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the Gaon Sabha in accordance with law and after perusing the entire material on record within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2012 Manish