DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner's father was appointed an authorised dealer of fair price shop in the year 1976 under a contract with the State of U. P. The Distribution is now regulated by the U. P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004. His shop is situate in Katra, a busy commercial locality in the city of Allahabad. In the year 1993 the shop was transferred to the petitioner.

(3.) THE shop was inspected by an inspecting party of the civil supplies department on 10. 2. 2005. It is alleged that stocks were found to be correct but the inspecting party took away the sales register of the period 1. 8. 2004 to 31. 1. 2005. The petitioner, however, was not given the receipts, either on the same day or on the next day, when he met the Additional District Magistrate. In the inspection note it was stated that the stock and rate board was not displayed, and that not a single card holder was present, whereas the dealer had entered a good amount of kerosene oil distributed on that day upto the time of inspection. On that date 13 fair price shops were inspected between 11. 50 a. m. to 1. 00 p. m. Notice was given to the petitioner on 16. 2. 2005 to produce the stock and sales register for a period of 3 months. The petitioner informed the Additional District Magistrate that the registers were already taken away by the inspecting party. The petitioner alleges that he was asked for bribe, to clear his name. He, however/did not agree to the demand. He has alleged that one Shri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal was having a dispute with the petitioner. He was keeping a grudge and had made complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply. It is contended that without considering his explanation the Sub Divisional Officer cancelled his authorization. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad on July 9th, 2007. The petitioner has made serious allegations against the office of the District Supply Officer, Allahabad and the corruption prevailing in the supply office with which we are not concerned. He had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 59735 of 2006 challenging the order by which licence was suspended. The writ petition was dismissed on 3. 11. 2006 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.