MANIRAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shubhranshu Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Challenge has been raised to the order dtd. 4/7/2017 passed by respondent no.3/District Supply Officer, Ghaziabad as confirmed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Food), Meerut dtd. 25/1/2018. Thus, the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner cancelled by the District Supply Officer, has been confirmed.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, the entire proceedings were vitiated. They were occasioned by the political malafide. In any case, the fact allegations were wrong. No short supply had been made by the petitioner. The alleged statements of the beneficiaries (recorded ex-parte) at the preliminary enquiry stage were rebutted by the petitioner. Full fledged enquiry was not conducted and no adverse evidence emerged (of short supplies made) on the perusal of the records. In absence of full-fledged enquiry, the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner could not have been cancelled.