- (1.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 15th December, 2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magis ­trate by which the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 14th November. 2008 passed by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot by which the ap ­peal filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 15th December, 2005 was dismissed.
(2.) THE records indicate that earlier the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was can ­celled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the order dated 22nd July, 1998. The peti ­tioner filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner. In the appeal this order dated 22nd July, 1998 was initially stayed but subsequently, the appeal was dismissed on 17th September, 1999. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 54910 of 1999 in which an interim order was passed on 6th January, 2000 that the orders dated 17th September, 1999 and 22nd July, 1998 shall remain stayed. This 5 petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court by the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2005 with the following obser vations:- "Notice were issued and the respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that there were various complaints against the pe ­titioner and the goods were not being distrib ­uted to the card holders and extra prices were being charged from the villagers. Both the authorities after considering the relevant records have come to the conclusion that the license of the petitioner has rightly been can ­celled. Petitioner submits that now on the basis of the interim order, the petitioner is operat ­ing and distributing the goods to the villag ­ers and there are no complaints against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid fact, the matter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, licensing authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate order after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accord ­ingly." After the aforesaid petition was disposed of by this Court, a notice dated 29th Novem ­ber, 2005 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate asking the petitioner to appear on 6th December, 2005 and submit evidence. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Di ­visional Magistrate and submitted affidavits of various persons that no irregularity had been committed by the petitioner. On 15th December, 2005, the Sub-Divisional Magis ­trate directed the Naib Tehsildar to examine the last five years' distribution records of the petitioner and submit a report within three days. However, on the same date, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 15th December, 2005 cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.7050 of 2006 in which an interim order was passed by this Court on 6th Febru ­ary, 2006 staying the operation of the order dated 15th December, 2005. Subsequently, this petition was dismissed on 29th April, 2008 with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by the order dated 14th November, 2008 has dismissed the appeal.
(3.) SRI Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the order dated 15th December, 2005 would indicate that the order is based on the inspection made by the Tehsildar on 15th December, 2005. He submits that the pe ­titioner was not given any opportunity to con ­trovert the allegations made in the report sub ­mitted by the Tehsildar. His submission is that if these irregularities were to form the basis for cancellation of the licence then a show cause notice was required to be given to the petitioner in respect of these charges but that was not done. He further submitted that on 15th December, 2005, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Tehsildar to submit a report within three days but on the same date enquiry is said to have been made and a re ­port was submitted and an order was also passed on the same date by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. According to him, the Commis ­sioner has also failed to consider these sub ­missions.;