Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) PETITIONER's fair price shop agreement has been cancelled by means of order dated 15.4.2008 and the aforesaid order has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide order dated 10.8.2009. Both the authorities have recorded findings of fact that regular distribution of essential commodities was not made to the beneficiaries and the petitioner has violated conditions of agreement.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that eight affidavits were filed subsequently before the appellate authority wherein beneficiaries clearly said that they have no complaint against the petitioner and are satisfied with his system of distribution. Admittedly none of these documents were available before the Deputy Collector. He has clearly observed that no evidence in defence was produced before him. He has further recorded findings of fact as under: - JUDGEMENT_508_ADJ7_2011Image1.jpg Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the above findings and contradict or show perversity therein. He however, submitted that sometimes one person used to collect commodities on behalf of two, three or more persons and, therefore, it may be possible that signatures of all persons to whom the commodities distributed were not there. This explanation admittedly was not provided before the authorities concerned. Petitioner could not produce any positive evidence in respect of same and is raising this issue for the first time before this Court. The argument advanced investigation into facts. Having failed to provide these facts before the authorities below and they having no opportunity or occasion to consider the correctness of these factual aspects, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise these factual aspects for the first time before this Court. The Commissioner has also recorded certain findings of fact as under: JUDGEMENT_508_ADJ7_2011Image2.jpg
(3.) IN the entire writ petition these facts have not been challenged to be incorrect or perverse. IN the circumstances the said finding cannot be interfered in the under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of "Sita Devi v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, 2010(8) ADJ 700". Therein the Court has interfered having found that there was no specific findings with regard to any particular irregularity committed by the dealer as is evident from paragraph 19 of the judgment which is reproduced as under:- "Merely saying that the distribution is not being done properly would not be sufficient for passing an order cancelling the licence of the petitioner. The valuable rights of the petitioner flow from the licence which has been given in his favour and in case the same is to be cancelled or withdrawn, there should be sufficient reason for the same." ;