- (1.)Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Sri H.L. Pandey, learned counsel who had filed caveat on behalf of Smt. Imarati Devi (non-party) is not present, even though his name is printed in the cause list. Petitioner's license/agreement/dealership to run Fair Price Shop was cancelled vide order dated 17.3.2005 passed by Deputy Collector, Hasanpur, district J.P. Nagar. Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal being Appeal No. 10 of 2006, which was dismissed by Assistant Commissioner Food, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on 19.7.2006, hence this writ petition.

Annexure 2 is suspension order as well as show-cause notice.

(2.)In the impugned order, it is mentioned that petitioner did not reply to the show-cause notice. Even through learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was ill, but I cannot accept this argument. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner remained ill from 24.1.2005 till 20.3.2005. In spite of illness petitioner could send the reply. In any case no application for extension of time was filed.
(3.)However, writ petition is to be allowed on the ground that neither in the show-cause notice, Annexure 2 nor in the impugned order, there is any specific allegation and finding against the petitioner. Only allegation and finding is that villagers and ration-card holders were not satisfied with the petitioner and her behaviour. It is extremely vague charge neither the finding is based on any specific evidence nor on this ground license could be cancelled. Accordingly, only on the ground that petitioner had not filed reply to the show-cause notice, license could not be cancelled. Even in absence of reply/explanation license can be cancelled only on the basis of some specific charge after recording finding on the basis of evidence or material available on the file supporting the said charge. The other requirement is that the charge and the finding must be germane for cancellation of the license. Even in para 4 of the counter-affidavit the only thing which is stated is that behaviour of the petitioner with the ration card holders was not good. In the counter-affidavit absolutely no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in respect of any irregularity in distribution of essential commodities.
Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside. Writ petition is allowed.