Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4346 of 2013 Petitioner :- Smt. Manju Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 03.08.2012 passed by respondent no. 3.
3. The petitioner was granted license for running the fair price shop at Village- Sahjadi Sarai, Tehsil- Sambhal. It appears that on complaint being made an enquiry was conducted on 08.05.2012 in regard to non- distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. According to petitioner, he filed an objection denying the factum that any such irregularity in distribution was made by him. The licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended on 14.05.2012 and vide order dated 03.08.2012, the licence was cancelled by respondent no. 3, aggrieved by the said order a Writ Petition No. 41219 of 2012 was filed challenging the order of cancellation. On 23.08.2012, this Court directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. The said appeal was dismissed on 22.12.2012 by respondent no. 2.
4. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there are 694 ration card holders in his shop against which only 1700 liters of kerosene oil and 34.50 quintals of wheat was given by the State Government for the distribution. It is further contended that the said commodities so received by the petitioner were distributed to the card holders on the basis of the Government norms, on the first come basis, and as he had received only 1700 liters of kerosene oil, the same was distributed to the card holders and there was no irregularity committed in the distribution.
5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that during enquiry, it was found that only 524 ration card holders got essential commodities and 1310 liters of kerosene oil was only distributed against 1700 liters of kerosene oil so allotted to the petitioner, as such there was no record as far as distribution of 390 liters of kerosene oil. It was also contended that the finding recorded by both the authorities below are finding of fact which is evident from the records so produced by the petitioner during enquiry.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that both the authorities have arrived at a finding that kerosene oil was distributed only to 524 ration card holders, whereas there are 694 ration card holders attached to the fair price shop in question. Out of the allotted 1700 liters of kerosene oil in the month of April, 2012 only 1310 liters was distributed by the petitioner. The finding given by the respondent no. 3 on 03.08.2012 regarding the fact that 390 liters less kerosene oil was distributed by the petitioner, no explanation was given by the petitioner in filing the appeal before respondent no. 2 nor any ground was taken challenging the said finding.
8. The respondent no. 2 also arrived at the same conclusion that the petitioner failed to distribute 390 liters of kerosene oil in the month of April, 2012, though he was allotted 1700 liters of kerosene oil. In the writ petition also the finding arrived by both authorities has neither been challenged nor any explanation has been given as to how findings recorded and orders passed by both authorities are against material on record. Further, there is no plausible averment in the writ petition to substantiate the claim of the petitioner and disbelieve the finding recorded by both the authorities.
9. In view of the above, I find that the orders passed by both the authorities below need no interference.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 V.S.Singh