PUSHPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order of the District Supply Officer dated 2.11.1992, cancelling the licence of his fair price shop and the appellate order dated 18.2.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a valid fair price shop owner. By the impugned order dated 2.11.1992, the licence of the fair price shop was cancelled. The reasons for cancelling the fair price shop as given in the impugned order is that the petitioner was imposed fine for closing his shop early and for not loading essential commodities on time as well as for the irregularities in distribution of food grains and other things. It is stated that on 3.12.1987, a fine of Rs. 50/- was imposed against him; on 22.4.1988, a fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed against him; on 29.9.1988, a fine of Rs. 200/-, on 2.2.1989, a fine of Rs. 200/-, on 21.5.1990 a fine of Rs. 100/-; on 2.1.1991 a fine of Rs.50/- and again on 18.3.1991 a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed against him and were realized from him. The allegations in the impugned order is that the fines were imposed on the petitioner for keeping his shop closed without valid reason and for not distributing food grains properly and for "other irregularities". A show-cause-notice is stated to have been given to the petitioner on 2.9.1992 calling for his explanation. The petitioner is stated to have submitted a reply dated 7.9.1992 through his counsel admitting the allegations against him. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2.11.1992 was passed cancelling the licence of his fair price shop.

(3.) THE submission of Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava further is that a reading of the impugned order dated 2.11.1992, does not disclose any material against the petitioner for the period of one and half years from 8.3.1992 up to the date of show-cause-notice dated 2.9.1992 and therefore, according to him, the action taken by the District Supply Officer in the cancellation of the fair price shop is absolutely an arbitrary act based solely upon the past history of the petitioner and his submission is that the past history of the petitioner could not have formed the foundation of the order dated 2.11.1992, if the functioning of the petitioner, as a fair price shop-holder, for a period of one and half years was unblemished and without any complaint.