- (1.) Heard Sri Siya Ram Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a fair price shop dealer in village Peer Nagar, block Simbhawali, Tehsil Garh Mukteshwar, district Ghaziabad since more than 10 years and is aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2008 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad, whereby his fair price shop license has been cancelled as also the appellate order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the irregularities alleged against him in the show cause notice were not proved nor the affidavit filed by the card holders in his support have been considered. He has further referred to his objection/reply filed to show cause notice as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition and states that the explanations given by him have not been considered in the impugned order and, therefore, the same requires to be set aside. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record it appears that as many as six charges were made against the petitioner in the show cause notice and the petitioner replied to the said charges. To the first charge his reply was that the B.P.L. card of those persons mentioned has already been cancelled and, therefore, the charges were not made out. In support of his reply the petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove that the B.P.L. card of those persons has been cancelled. On the other hand in the inspection made of the cards of the card holders it was found that all the five persons were holding B.P.L. card and since March, 2008 there is no entry in their cards with respect to supply of essential commodities and food grains which the petitioner being fair price shop dealer had withdrawn from the Government godown. Similarly, with respect to the other four charges inspection has found irregularities in supply on the rate and non-supply at all. In one of the cards it has been found that the petitioner has kept the card with him for seven months and has not given any commodities or food grains to that person. Specific finding on each of the twelve card holders has been recorded in the impugned order. The said finding is quoted below:
(2.) For the reasons given against the name of these card holders the authority has found that all the charges have been proved against the petitioner who has indulged in irregularities in distribution of essential commodities and food grains and, therefore, it has cancelled the license.
(3.) There is nothing in this writ petition to disprove even one of the charges found proved against the petitioner nor any record has been produced by the petitioner before the authorities below. The petitioner has also not proved his plea that the B.P.L. card of some of the card holders mentioned in the show cause notice had been cancelled or even attached with another fair price shop. Insofar as the affidavits filed in support of the petitioner are concerned the scope of enquiry was not with respect to the card holders who gave affidavit in favour of the petitioner. It was with respect to those card holders where irregularities were committed by the petitioner. Therefore out of hundreds of card holders if irregularities are found out in some then those card holders where irregularities are not in issue cannot be a ground to hold that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity. In the present case specific card holders have been mentioned and specific irregularity committed by the petitioner has been found. Hence any amount of affidavits of other card holders in favour of the petitioner but who were not in issue in the charge will have no beneficial consequences for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the authorities, more particularly, when there is no evidence to the contrary available on the record of this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required in the impugned order. The writ petition has no merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.;