NAKLI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. None responded for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 16.5.2006, passed by the respondent No. 3 and order dated 10.1.2007, passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexures-3 and 5), whereby the petitioner's fair price shop has been cancelled on the ground of irregularities in making distribution of kerosene to various ration card holders.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 3 has himself arrived at the conclusion that 80 litres kerosene was found in the stock on verification. There was no allegation of any shortage in the stock. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that only allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had not distributed kerosene to various ration card holders. It was also submitted that the petitioner's reply was that most of the card holders did not visit the shop to take the kerosene and some of them had either died or were living else where. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No. 3 has not recorded any finding to the effect that the various ration card holders visited the petitioner's shop to purchase kerosene but they were not given. In absence of such finding, the cancellation of the shop was not justified, specially when there was no shortage in the stock. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the appellate authority also failed to give due consideration to the point involved in the matter and dismissed the appeal summarily without applying his mind to the facts of the case.