Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. His licence has been cancelled by the order dated 5.5.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 and his appeal has also been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by order dated 26.3.2004.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two orders in this writ petition on the ground that the suspension order and the show cause notice dated 29.3.2003 did not indicate and such charge against him and only recital was that certain complaints were received from the villagers regarding irregularities in distributing the essential commodities. His contention is that in reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner submitted the same on 8.4.2003 and thereafter, the impugned order of cancellation has been passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that neither any enquiry was held nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to produce his record whereas the sole ground in the impugned order for cancelling his licence is that the petitioner did not produce the records along with his explanation which was indicative of the fact that the petitioner was avoiding an enquiry into the alleged irregularities. The Appellate Court according to him has taken into consideration the earlier warning given to the petitioner wherein a sum of Rs. 250/ - was confiscated from the security. He submits that the said ground cannot be made a reason for cancellation of his fair price shop in pursuance of notice dated 29.3.2003. He further submits that since no enquiry has been conducted, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and further that no finding has been recorded with respect to any irregularity alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that from a perusal of show cause notice as also the order of cancellation of fair price shop, it is quite clear that the petitioner was required to submit the relevant register for enquiry along with his explanation. However, the petitioner did not furnish the required records and, therefore, there was no option with the authority but to proceed to pass an order of cancellation which was in pursuance of the complaints made by the villagers. He has referred to a complaint filed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition to demonstrate that the complaint relates to irregularities in distribution of kerosene oil and ration to the villagers. Consequently, he submits that the impugned order of cancellation does not suffer from any error and the Appellate Court has rightly affirmed the same. His contention is that even in the past the petitioner had been warned to improve his conduct however, it is quite clear that he is continuing to commit irregularities in spite of such warning.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel, the fact that no specific charge was made against the petitioner in the show cause notice dated 29.3.2003 cannot be denied. A perusal of the said notice indicates that the allegation is that the petitioner has prima facie committed a grave irregularity and the substance of the complaint has not been given in the show cause notice. Consequently, it can be concluded that the petitioner was not informed the specific irregularity alleged against him which he had to explain in his reply to show cause notice. The cancellation order dated 5.5.2003 indicates that sole reason therein is that he had committed irregularities which were required to be gone into by production of the registers by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has found that although the petitioner has submitted his explanation but inspite of demand, he has failed to produce the relevant record. The conclusion of the respondent No. 2 on these facts was that the petitioner is avoiding an enquiry and therefore, he has proceeded to cancel the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. The appellate authority has affirmed the finding of the respondent No. 2 and has further found that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion been given a warning however, he had not improved himself and, therefore, the order of cancellation was correct.;