A.P.SAHI,J - (1.) LIST has been revised.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mukhtar Alam and Sri J.N. Mishra, and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri Dinesh Raghav has filed his appearance on behalf of the Caveator, whose name is also shown in the cause list but is not present in spite of the fact that the matter has been taken up in the revised call. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents in spite of time having been granted on 7.9.2005. Almost 4 years have passed with no response from the respondents. In view of this, this Court does not find it necessary to grant any further time to the respondents for filing a counter-affidavit or any adjournment. The dispute in the present petition is in relation to a cancellation of a fair price shop by the competent authority vide order dated 10.3.2005 and the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 27.7.2005.
(3.) THE petitioner's licence for running a fair price shop had been cancelled earlier. Against which, the petitioner straight way approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.41968 of 2004. The said writ petition was allowed on 3.1.2005 and the cancellation order was quashed with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate - respondent No.3 to pass a fresh order after considering the explanation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a notice on 3.3.2005; copy whereof is Annexure-12 to this writ petition and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 9.3.2005 annexing there with the evidence relied upon by the petitioner which has been detailed at the foot of the said reply; copy whereof is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order on 10.3.2005 on the very next day of the submission of his explanation and rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that his explanation has not been found satisfactory keeping in view the report of the Senior Supply Inspector dated 13.9.2004. The conclusions drawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are narrated thereafter, according to which, the petitioner had failed to supply the essential commodities regularly and had been charging excess price in respect of the commodities supplied by him. It was further recorded that the petitioner's absence has also resulted into untimely distribution of the essential commodities.;