MANOJ PRASAD CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and Mr. Modi, counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE appellant was a licensee of a fair price shop. His shop was inspected. It was found that his books of accpunt were not up -to -date. It was also found that there was shortage in sugar stock in the shop premises. Some of the customers linked to that shop also complained that the appellant was over charging. The authority concerned, therefore, issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled for violation of the conditions of the licence. The appellant submitted an explanation. The licensing authority found that the facts established, clearly showed that the conditions of the licence were violated. Thus he cancelled the licence.

(3.) THE appellant challenged the said decision of the appellate authority in W.P. (C) No. 2985 of 2002 before this Court. The learned Single Judge noticed that the main ground urged was that the order of the licensing authority was a routine one and adequate materials were not available to sustain the cancellation of the licence. The learned Single Judge found that on the facts of this case it could not be held that there Was no proper and regular inquiry. The learned Judge also found that the conclusion arrived at by the original authority and affirmed by the appellate authority was proper. The learned Single Judge found that no procedural irregularity was committed by the original authority or by the appellate authority, in passing the respective orders. The learned Single Judge found that the appellate authority has reappraised the entire materials on record and had given an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and recorded findings of fact based on relevant materials and came to the conclusion that there was no justification in interfering with the impugned order in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus the wit petition was dismissed.