RAMPAL SHARMA Vs. ADDITIONAL FOOD COMMISSIONER & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 31.08.2007 (Annexure-4), 26.09.2007 (Annexure-5), and 17.12.2008 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondents, and further sought direction to allow the petitioner to work as fair price shopkeeper.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was an authorized fair price shopkeeper under the authorization issued by the respondents under the Rajasthan Food Grains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the order of 1976"). It further appears that pursuant to the direction issued by the Food Commissioner, the District Supply Officer ordered the Enforcement Inspector to conduct the inquiry. Accordingly the Enforcement Inspector Shri Kanhaiya Lal conducted the inquiry at the shop of the petitioner on 28.06.2007, and found certain irregularities. The Enforcement Inspector prepared the report and submitted to the District Supply Officer, on which the District Supply Officer had issued the show cause notice on 16.08.2007 (Annexure-2). It was alleged in the said notice that at the time of inspection by the Enforcement Inspector, the petitioner had not furnished the record in respect of the stock of kerosene oil and of wheat for the period between January 2005 to September 2006, and that the petitioner was found to have excess stock of kerosene oil to the extent of 4090 litres, which the petitioner had procured from the dealer, and had not distributed to the card holders. According to the petitioner, he appeared before the respondent No.3 and filed his reply and the next date fixed was 31.08.2007. However, when the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 on 31.08.2007, he was told that his authorization was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the appeal before the respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide the order dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure-5). The petitioner also preferred revision petition before the revisional authority i.e. the respondent No.1, however the said revision petition was also dismissed vide the order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure-6). Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Keshav Agarwal for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 in the similar matters in respect of the other fair price shopkeepers had not believed the allegations of the Enforcement Inspector and had continued their authorizations, whereas in case of petitioner, he had cancelled the license without any justification. He further submitted that the petitioner had furnished all the records as demanded by the Enforcement Officer and that if some excess stock was given by the dealer to the petitioner and found in the shop of the petitioner, it could be presumed that the petitioner had not distributed the kerosene oil to the card holder. He further submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.3 being in violation of principal of natural Justice and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court also having been passed without any proper application of mind, all the orders are liable to be set-aside. However, the learned Govt. Counsel Mr. V.D. Gathala for the respondents submitted that the petitioner having found to have committed irregularities of serious nature at the time of inquiry, the authorities have rightly cancelled the authorization.