A.P.SAHL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the Affidavits.
(2.) THE ground of challenge in the present petition is that the impugned orders of District Supply Officer as well as the appellate order both suffer from infirmities inasmuch as the petitioner was put to notice only in respect of certain irregularities in distribution of kerosene oil with regard to which a limited number of alleged Card-holders had made a complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that apart from this, no further allegations were made in the notice; to which the petitioner has submitted a reply which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the impugned order that the statement of those card-holders, who were named in the show cause notice, had also been furnished and it was pointed out that the complaints were all imaginary. Learned counsel further contends that he had supplied all the documents that were necessary for the purpose of inquiry pertaining to the alleged irregularities. The writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on 29.8.2006 restraining any permanent settlement of the shop in question and allowed the attachment of the shop to continue.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed and learned Standing Counsel has urged that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has committed certain irregularities and, therefore, in spite of having been given adequate opportunity, he failed to satisfy the causes shown in the show cause notice. Learned Standing Counsel further urged that the petitioner has been unable to produce the relevant stock register and, therefore, in this view of the matter also, the Commissioner rightly rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner.;