Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) After the show cause notice was issued, the petitioner had replied and on 30.7.2012, the licence to run the fair price shop was cancelled. Essentially, if the charges which are eight in number are perused, it becomes clear that there is no charge in which any of the villagers had alleged that he or she was not getting the essential commodities. There are charges to the effect that the petitioner had not been able to show the stock register or the distribution register. The further charge that on 2.5.2012 when the inspection was made, there was a shortage in the stock of the kerosene oil was replied to by the petitioner that in fact no inspection was made on 2.5.2012. He had further stated that there was no question of having a stock on that date as he had in fact lifted the stock of kerosene oil only on 8.5.2012. The petitioner had appealed against the order and the appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eight charges which have been levelled against him are such which do not show that any villager was deprived of essential commodities ever. There are charges by which it has been alleged that the essential commodities were not to be found in the shop of the petitioner on 2.5.2012 to which the petitioner had replied that in fact he had lifted the essential commodities after 2.5.2012. Further, he has submitted that such charges of non production of various registers were only a result of malafide because the petitioner never intended to keep the registers back and that even before the enquiry officer, he was always ready to show the registers. The further submission of the petitioner is that the enquiry was not conducted as per the provisions of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. Neither a date nor a place was fixed for the enquiry. The petitioner was never allowed to cross examine any witness on whom the enquiry depended upon. Further the petitioner was also never required to produce his witnesses. The question therefore, of any examination-in-chief or of cross examination never arose.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent in his reply submitted that since the petitioner was a fair price shop dealer and was not conducting his shop properly and, what is more, as it was resolved in the Gaon Sabha meeting that he had to be removed, no further enquiry had in fact to be conducted.;