Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10189 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shyam Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Othrs Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Dutt,Nagendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
By the impugned order dated 06.08.2018, the licensing authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madiyahun, District-Jaunpur has cancelled the fair price shop of the petitioner.
The licensing authority found that the allegations of malpractices in the distribution of essential commodities was found to be prima facie correct in the preliminary enquiry. In view of the depositions made by various card holders before the preliminary enquiry officer regarding malpractices in the distribution, the petitioner was directed to produce the stock and distribution register. He failed to do so. On the contrary, the petitioner merely produced an extract of the sale register for the months of May & June, 2018. The defence of the petitioner was accordingly invalidated and the licensing authority found that the charges against the petitioner stood established.
The learned appellate authority/Deputy Food Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi in its order dated 23.08.2019 agreed with the findings made by the licensing authority in the order of cancellation of the licence dated 06.08.2018 and affirmed the said order. The learned appellate authority made an independent evaluation of the evidence in the record.
The defence of the petitioner that number of persons from the card holders, who had deposed against the petitioner before the preliminary enquiry officer had given affidavits in his favour was evaluated by the learned appellate authority/Deputy Food Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and disbelieved. The affidavits were an afterthought. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned appellate authority found that the deposition of the card holders before the preliminary enquiry officer was credible. The learned appellate court held that charges of malpractices against the petitioner were proved.
The Court cannot substitute its findings in respect of an issue which requires appreciation of evidence when the evidence has been appraised by the authorities below as per law.
In the wake of preceding discussion, and upon perusal of the records, this Court has found that both the authorities below observed full procedural propriety and adhered to principles of natural justice while passing the impugned orders. The conclusions reached by the licensing authority are reasonable and were arrived at after achieving the applicable standards of evidence. The petitioner failed to submit a credible defence against the serious charges of malpractices in distribution of essential commodities to the most deprived section of the society. No perversity in the findings was pointed out from the pleadings and the records. The impugned orders do not call for any interference.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Ashish Tripathi