VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing order dated 18.7.1988 Annexure P-7, passed by respondent No. 4 cancelling the depot of the petitioner and forfeiting the security amount of Rs. 1000.00as also order dated 27.12.1988. Annexure P-9 whereby the appeal against order Annexure P-7 was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a licence No. RTK/HFA/824 dated 29.1.1987 by the District Food & Supplies Controller, Rohtak, authorising him to purchase, sell or store for sale food articles-food grains, sugar, khandsaries, Gur and to carry on the aforesaid business as a depot-holder in the aforementioned ration depot. The Deputy Superintendent of Police State Vigilance Cell, Gurgaon vide his letter dated June 15, 1988 asked the Assistant Food and Supplies officer, Rohtak, to inform the depot-holders including the petitioner mentioned in the letter to make available to him stock and sale register of wheat, rice, sugar, palm oil for the months of Dec., 1987 and Jan., 1988 and to send him the report, if any, in case record was not available so that enquiry could be completed. A copy of the said letter Annexure P-3 is annexed to the petition. Through as per letter dated June 15, 1988 the depot holders were to make available to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, the stock and sale registers for the months of Dec., #987 and Jan., 1988 yet to the great surprise of the petitioner the aforesaid Deputy Superintendent of Police on June 15, 1988 without giving any intimation to the petitioner seized the following stock registers :

(3.) I have perused the paper book. From the paper book I find that the respondents have not filed any written statement. As such, the contention of the petitioner remains un-rebutted. From the perusal of the order dated Dec. 27, 1988, it is observed that respondent No. 3 has not passed a speaking order and has not dealt with the points raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. It appears that while passing the impugned order the appellate authority has not applied its mind. As such, the order of the appellate authority is quashed. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order after dealing with all the points raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. Respondent No. 3. shall also allow the petitioner to produce the register of wheat for the month of Dec., 1987. This writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Petition allowed.