PREM CHANDRA Vs. DISTT. MAGISTRATE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties. As no factual controversy arises, it was not considered necessary to grant any time to file counter affidavit and the petition is being disposed off finally at preliminary hearing.

(2.) The petition is directed against orders passed by opposite parties cancelling his licence for fair price shop and forfeiting his security money. The Petitioner was allotted a lair price shop at Talib Nagar district Aligarh in June 1984 for purposes of sale of Sugar and Kerosene oil under the provisions of Sugar and Gur Dealers Licensing Order 1962. In lieu of licence he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/ - as security under the provisions of para 5A of the aforesaid licensing Order. On 29.08.1985 the license was cancelled without disclosing any reason or giving any opportunity to Petitioner. Against this order, Petitioner filed appeal. It was claimed that the order had been passed without hearing. It does not appear to have been disputed before appellate authority but the appeal was dismissed as according to appellate authority, the Petitioner did not deposit Rs. 1000/ -. Instead some third person got Rs. 100/ - deposited and in the office record got it made Rs. 1000/ -. As on inquiry it was found that entry of Rs. 1000/ -was incorrect the Petitioners' license was cancelled. The appeal was dismissed as Petitioner was guilty of interpolation.

(3.) It is not disputed that under licensing order the Petitioners' license could be cancelled only after giving opportunity of hearing. As this was not done the order of Sub -Divisional Magistrate was erroneous. It is illegal as well since it does not contain any reason. Learned Standing Counsel urged that as Petitioner was heard in appeal the requirement of law was satisfied. The argument has not substance. The appellate authority found that Petitioner was guilty of interpolation. And this finding is based on inquiry made in the office. How could the inquiry made by office be relied without even intimating Petitioner and affording him any opportunity to meet it.