Binod Kumar Roy, V.P. Goel, JJ. - (1.) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to command the Respondents to permit him to carry on the business of Petty Diesel Oil in Qasba Gonda, Tehsil Iglas, District Aligarh. He has also come up with a prayer to stay the operation of the Government Order by which ban has been imposed by the Respondents in regard to use of underground tank and dispensing pump. On a question being asked by us to the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Swapnil Kumar as to where is the Government Order the operation of which the petitioner desires to be stayed by us, he very fairly states that Government Order has not been brought on the record by the petitioner.
(2.) IN view of the Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. Central Government and others : AIR 1986 SC 2166, (paragraph 6) that whenever an order of the Government or some authority is impugned before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a copy of that order must be produced before the High Court, we reject Prayer No. 2. This we are doing because unless the petitioner comes up with a prayer to quash or its nullification its operation cannot be stayed by us. Now we revert back to the first prayer. From the seizure list, as contained in Annexure -5, it appears that the Firm/shop of the petitioner was inspected by District Alpa Sankhyak Kalyan Adhikari, Aligarh, which has been challenged by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the writ petition on the ground that he is not an authority under the law. As to whether the aforementioned authority was vested with powers to have inspection or not, the petitioner, in his affidavit states that his statement is true to his knowledge. There is world or difference between true to once personal knowledge and on the basis of the information derived from relevant records of office. There is a presumption of correctness of the official acts. That presumption has not been rebutted by the petitioner by making a categorical statement that he has verified from the records of the Government that the person afore -mentioned was not vested with powers to hold inspection. Accordingly, we cannot place reliance on such a statement of the petitioner.
(3.) THE worst is that on his own case the petitioner has not brought on the record his licence, which was operative till March, 1998 only.;