Vineet Saran - (1.) THE petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. By order dated 25.7.2007, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was placed under suspension. Reply to the charges was given by the petitioner. THEreafter, by order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Licensing Authority), the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which has been dismissed on 24.10.2008 by the Deputy Commissioner (Food),Varanasi Division, Varanasi. Aggrieved by the said order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and order dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi, this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice along with suspension order dated 25.7.2007 is absolutely vague and all that it states is that to some card holders the petitioner distributes food items whereas to some other card holders, he distributes only kerosene oil and not the food items. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has categorically stated that on 26.8.2003 the petitioner was allotted 112 card holders for distribution of essential commodities including the food items, which is being done regularly by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was allotted 117 more card holders, but no allotment of food grains was ever made by the Food Department in respect to the 117 card holders attached with the shop of the petitioner and only quota of kerosene oil was allotted for 117 card holders, which was duly distributed by the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that despite the petitioner having given the specific number of card holders attached to him regarding some of whom the food grains items were allotted to the petitioner, which he distributed and for the remaining 117 card holders only the kerosene oil was allotted by the respondent authorities and hence that alone was distributed to them, the same has not been considered by the Licensing Authority and by merely reiterating the charges against the petitioner, as had been mentioned in the suspension order, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled.
(3.) PERUSAL of the appellate order also goes to show that all that the appellate authority has stated in paragraph 6 of the impugned order is that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and that there is no illegality with the order of the Licensing Authority, hence the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at no stage, his reply that the food items as allotted to the petitioner by the respondent authorities were duly distributed, has not been considered by the respondent authorities, has force.;