MAHMOODA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 03 -07 -2007, passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the licence given to the Petitioner to run the fair price shop is cancelled. The Petitioner has further challenged the order dated 30 -08 -2007, passed by Respondent No. 2, the appellate authority, whereby the appeal against aforesaid order is dismissed by said authority.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

(3.) THOUGH No. counter affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, but Respondent No. 4 contested the writ petition and filed his counter affidavit. In said counter affidavit it has been admitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Sikroda with her husband in House No. 107 of the village. However, it is denied that the Petitioner's brother -in -law Atahar Khan (Dewar) lives separately from the Petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that earlier Petitioner's husband Arif Khan used to run the fair price shop, who was found involved in mass irregularities in running the fair price shop and his licence was cancelled. Thereafter in 1998, the Petitioner (wife of Arif Khan) got the licence to run the fair price shop. In Para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that some 500 people submitted a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate regarding gross irregularities being committed by the Petitioner in distribution of the essential commodities to the ration card holders. The inquiry was conducted in the matter by Nayab Tehsildar, Roorkee, who found the complaints made by the people to be correct and submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on 19 -06 -2007, the Sub Divisional Magistrate wrote a letter to the District Magistrate in the matter. Finally the matter was referred to the District Supply Officer and after giving show cause notice to the Petitioner and considering his reply the impugned order canceling the licence was passed. It is vehemently denied in the counter affidavit that the answering Respondent had any grudge against the Petitioner or he ever wanted to pressurize her. Defending the impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 3 and by the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) it is stated that the orders passed suffer from No. illegality.