DEO KUMAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the original order dated 20th July 2010 passed by the respondent no. 5 -the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra whereby the Fair Price Shop Licence No. 4/2000 in the name of the petitioner, has been cancelled. He is also aggrieved by the Appellate Order dated 7th March 2012 (Annexure -6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (Respondent No. 4) as well as Revisional Order dated 16th May 2012 (Annexure -7) passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh.

(3.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Fair Price Shopkeeper having Licence No. 4/2000 for a shop at village Kharanti in the district of Hazaribagh now Chatra. He was carrying on Fair Price Shop in accordance with the terms of licence since the year 2000. But was surprised to receive a show -cause notice dated 24th June 2010 (Annexure -1) asking him to give reply to the allegations in respect of the charges levelled against him. The charges were that during inspection made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra on 23rd June , the shop was found closed; that he had lifted the food articles for public distribution, but the same was not distributed to the persons below the poverty line and beneficiaries of Antyodya Yojna on the date fixed; that he was carrying out business of Fair Price Shop in a whimsical manner which is contrary to the terms of the licence. The petitioner responded by filing his reply to the show -cause vide Annexure -2 dated 5th July 2010 also enclosing an affidavit said to have been sworn on behalf of twenty such persons who were alleged to have made allegations against the petitioner. He has also taken a plea that on the fateful day, he had met with a motorcycle accident and gone for treatment, that is why the shop was closed. In the meantime earlier, the petitioner had also been served with second show -cause notice on 25th June 2010 in which it was also indicated that several BPL Card Holders and beneficiaries of Antyodya Yojna had made complaints and reference of some of them was also indicated in the show -cause (Annexure -4); the shop was not having display board when the shop was inspected on 23rd June 2010, he had failed to disclose any reason for closure of the shop. These acts were clearly in contravention of the terms of the licence and allegations made by the card holders show that he was indulging in irregularity in P.D.S. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed.