KRISHNA SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations of black-marketing against the petitioner. Petitioner has furnished satisfactory explanation on all counts alleged in the charges. No inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner which is the basis of the show-cause notice. In absence thereof petitioner has been prejudiced from answering the basis, if any of the charges. He has categorically stated that he had not kept any BPL card of any consumer nor are there any complaints of non-delivery of PDS items to any such consumers. The appellate authority, after having considered the explanation of the petitioner, however, has upheld the cancellation of the licence which is wholly disproportionate to any such irregularities alleged. Petitioner has been operating the fair price shop since 1986. Therefore, some consideration should have been accorded to the case of the petitioner also on sympathetic ground.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit. He submits that due procedure of law has been followed. Specific charges have been issued by way of show-cause upon the petitioner and after consideration of his reply, which was unsatisfactory, the order impugned has been passed. The allegations have been found established. Therefore, the appellate authority has also not found any infirmity in the order of cancellation nor any violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner has, therefore, no ground to seek interference in the matter.