(1.) Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application. As requested by learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer and his agreement was cancelled on the allegations of several irregularities in distribution of essential commodities like, non-supply, charging higher price etc. Initially petitioner's agreement was suspended by order dated 4.1.2007 and after considering petitioner's reply dated 16.3.2007 the Deputy Collector, Misrikh, District Sitapur passed cancellation order dated 19.5.2007, whereagainst petitioner's appeal has been rejected by Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow vide order dated 3.4.2008. These are the two orders impugned in this writ petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not allowed the opportunity of cross-examination of those beneficiaries whose statements have been relied by respondents and further that he has not committed any illegality or irregularity in distribution of essential commodities and without any application of mind the impugned orders have been passed. He placed reliance on this Court's decision in Munna Singh v. State of U.P. and others,2009 27 LCD 1432and Bahori Lal Gupta v. Commissioner, Lucknow and others (Misc. Single No. 1645 of 2008, decided on 22.11.2011.