Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for respondent no. 4 - Gram Sabha and with their consent, this writ petition is being finally heard without calling for the counter affidavit.
(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 31.12.2013 cancelling her fair price shop agreement, the order dated 22.05.2015 dismissing the appeal for non prosecution and the order dated 22.12.2016 rejecting the delay condonation application for restoration of the case.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were absolutely no evidence for non distribution of essential commodities to card holders by the petitioner. The petitioner had regularly filed monthly certificates for distribution of commodities which were not disbelieved. On 21.09.2013 the petitioner had gone to deposit the amount for food grains in the Bank since the last date for deposit was 22.09.2013 which was Sunday. Since on Saturday the Bank was open only till 12.00 'O' Clock and therefore, the petitioner could not appear at the time of alleged inspection. The petitioner had no concern with 25 quintals wheat shown by the authorities to have been recovered from Tata 207 vehicle bearing Registration No. U.P. 83 K 9106 which was recovered at the instance of the complainant Sri Virendra who has personal enmity with the petitioner and against whom a first information report under Section 307 IPC was lodged by the petitioner and the trial was going on. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery of the aforesaid 25 quintals wheat. Neither any card holder has complained for any irregularity or illegality in distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner nor statement of any card holder or villager was recorded by the authorities in support of their conclusion that the petitioner indulged in black marketing of the essential commodities or non distribution to card holders of the village. It is further submitted that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for non appearance on 22.05.2015 fixed in the appeal before the respondent no. 2 and there was also sufficient cause for delay in filing the restoration application. The statement of facts made in the delay condonation application could not be disputed by the respondents. The respondent no. 2 rejected the delay condonation application without there being any evidence on record to disbelieve the contentions. The respondent no. 2 has passed an unreasoned order for rejection of the delay condonation application and the restoration application. The petitioner has very good case on merit and yet she could not get justice, although she is pursuing the matter since last four years. It is further submitted that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and there being absolutely no evidence on record and the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 being not based on any evidence, deserves to be quashed.;