HASHIM Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Dev, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kesarwani, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that two charges were levelled against the petitioner, namely some APL cards holder have given statement which was verified by village Pradhan that kerosene oil is sold by the petitioner at Rs. 16.00 per liter and APL wheat has not been given to them. The second charge was that Sri Farookhan had stated that his BPL card has been kept by the petitioner and the same has not been returned. Petitioner submitted detailed reply and stated that the compliant had been made at the behest of earlier fair price shop dealer, the complaint is wholly without basis, the compliant was also made earlier and after due inquiry an order dated 5th October, 2012 was passed and the petitioner's fair price shop licence was restored and just after three months opposite group has again managed to make a compliant. It was also explained that distribution to APL card holders has been made in accordance with law in supervision of the nominated distribution committee by the Government without any complaint. Kerosene oil is distributed at the fixed rate of Rs.15.50 per liter. It was also explained that there are 500 APL card holders attached to fair price shop in question against which 28.08 quintel wheat is given to the petitioner for distribution and accordingly 10 Kg. wheat to 281 APL card holders has been distributed under the policy first come first get. It was also explained that the allegation of the BPL card holder is wholly false and an affidavit of the said BPL cards holder was also filed who denied the complaint. The respondent no. 3 without considering the explanation has passed the order dated 15th July, 2013 cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner.

(3.) Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Mordabad Division Moradabad which was rejected vide order dated 14th August, 2014 without any discussion or finding on the charges. He merely observed that the explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory by the respondent no. 3 and his licence was earlier cancelled in November, 2012 which was restored subsequently after confiscating his security of Rs.5,000/-.