RAMHIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri O.P. Chaube, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) Affidavits between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of at this stage.

(3.) From the materials brought on record, it transpires that the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) suspended the petitioner's fair price shop licence on the allegations of irregularities and directed the Supply Inspector, Baberu to take possession of the stock and distribution registeres of petitioner's fair price shop relating to the month of November, 2006 and inquire into the matter and submit his report so that further action be taken against the petitioner. Upon being served with the suspension order, the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent No. 3 on 14.12.2006 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) with a prayer for revoking the suspension if his fair price shop licence, thereafter, the respondent No. 3 without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity of hearing and without supplying him with a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the District Supply Officer and erroneously treating the order of suspension to be the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop agreement by his order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) observing that despite being directed to show-cause the petitioner failed to submit any explanation before him and hence, the allegations of irregularities which were made against the petitioner were premumed to be true. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda which was numbered as Appeal No. 38.2006-07 and dismissed by him by his order dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition).