RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by District Food and Supply Controller, chamba in exercise of the powers vested with him under clauses 14 and 15 of the authorization issued under Annexure P/5 bearing Code No. 906/GM, withdrawing the same and cancelling the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner. By the said order the security deposit of Rs. 200/ - pledged to the said officer was forfeited in all in favour of the Government. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that no personal opportunity has been given to him as contemplated by clause 14 of the authorization referred to above. Clause 14 reads as under: "14. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 12 the authorities issuing authority is satisfied that the depot holder has contravened any of the conditions of the authorization may order the forfeiture of whole or any part of the security deposit after giving the wholesaler personal opportunity of stating his case against the forfeiture."

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that in the show cause notice specific allegations were made against him and he was prepared to show all the relevant records to the authorities if he was given an opportunity to do so. In his reply he had made an offer to that effect and also prayed for a personal hearing before the concerned official. It is also pointed out by the petitioners counsel that the members of the local public wanted him to continue with the fair price shop and there was no reason for cancelling or withdrawing the authority given to him.

(3.) In so fir as the wording of clause 14 is concerned, it especially refers a personal opportunity being given to the concerned person in case an order forfeiting the security deposit or any part thereof is to be made. There are two other clauses in the same authorization, namely, Clauses 13 and 15 which read as follows: