SONU K OIL DEPOT Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner assails the order dated 5.4.2002, passed by the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the appeal against the cancellation of the licence and forfeiture of security deposit in respect of oil depot, run by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's whole livelihood depends upon the said depot and he had been running the same for the last 21 years. It is submitted that penalty for cancellation is rather harsh and wholly dis-proportionate to the charges levied by the respondents.

(2.) I have gone through the impugned order. The following eight charges are noticed in the order dated 4.1.2002 of the Assistant Commissioner:-

(3.) On a perusal of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs) as well as the Financial Commissioner in appeal and the second appeal, I find that each of the plea raised by the petitioner in respect of these charges has been adequately and cogently dealt with. The orders record sound reason for reaching the conclusions, which they have arrived at. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that affidavits produced by the petitioner have been ignored. The impugned order records that verification of the said statements made by the persons, whose affidavits, were filed, have shown that either the persons have not stuck to the statements made or in some cases their premises were found locked. The affidavits are stereotyped.