SUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta appears for the petitioner and Sri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondent.

(2.) Petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned cancellation order dated 23.6.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad/fifth respondent as well as the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Allahabad/second respondent, with a further request to quash the re-enquiry report dated 31.5.2018 passed by Supply Inspector, Meja, Allahabad/sixth respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the order dated 7.12.2017 (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) wherein the District Supply Officer, Allahabad had proceeded to observe on the basis of enquiry, allegations so leveled against the petitioner were partly proved and had recommended imposition of forfeiture of security amount of Rs. 5,000/- restoring the contract of the shop. The said recommendation was rejected by the District Magistrate in two lines order on the same day and further directed to hold denovo/re-enquiry, which is illegal and bad in law. Thereafter, in compliance of the said order, the Supply Inspector, Meja proceeded for re-enquiry without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner and submitted report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja on 31.5.2018 and on the basis of said ex-parte enquiry report, the order impugned has been passed, whereby, license of the petitioner has been cancelled, which is against the principles of natural justice.