- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner is a fair price shop licence holder. His licence has been cancelled on the allegations which are contained in the charge sheet dated 22nd March, 2011 and which have been allegedly found to be proved. The petitioner contends that he had submitted a detailed reply but the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 14th May, 2001 fails to take consideration either the evidence on record or the explanation of the petitioner as such aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed and the appellate order is also erroneous for the same reasons.
(3.) Sri Gupta has invited the attention of the Court to the grounds of appeal and also that part of the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate which has recorded the explanation given by the petitioner to the charges levelled against him. As an illustration Sri Gupta has invited attention of the Court to the fact of 45 Ration Cards indicating no endorsement of the supply of the essential commodities. In his reply the petitioner had submitted that in some of the cards the endorsement could not have been made due to the absence of photographs of the card holders. Sri Gupta contends that this aspect has been completely overlooked and the impugned order has been passed on a mere presumption without there being any further evidence. ?;