B.K.NARAYANA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Amarjit Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage. The petitioner was granted a licence for running a fair price shop in Village Gokalpur, Block Puwaraka District Saharanpur. The aforesaid licence was cancelled by the respondent No. 3 by order dated 07.07.2007 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) inter alia on the grounds that there were complaints of irregularities in the distribution of scheduled commodities and black marketing against the petitioner and upon his son being elected as Pradhan of the Gram Sabha in which the petitioner's fair price shop exists he had became disqualified to run his fair price shop in view of the restriction imposed in the Government Order dated 18.07.2002. The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.07.2007 by preferring an appeal under paragraph No. 28 of the U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004 before the respondent No. 2 which was registered as appeal No. 67 of 2006-07, inter alia on the grounds that the licensing authority erred in cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop agreement merely on the basis of complaints of irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities against the petitioner without recording any finding that the allegations made against the petitioner stood proved on the basis of any evidence on record; that the licensing authority did not consider the explanation submitted by him in reply to the charge sheet in accordance with law; that the petitioner's fair price shop agreement was not liable to be cancelled by invoking the government order dated 18.07.2002 which is prospective in nature as the disqualification stipulated therein could not have been applied retrospectively for cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop licence on the ground of his son having been elected as Pradhan and also for the reason that he had disowned his son in the year 2000.
(3.) LEARNED standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's fair price shop licence was rightly cancelled by the respondent No. 3 keeping in view the provisions of the Government Order of the year 2002. Respondent No. 3 by cancelling petitioner's licence on the basis of the Government Order of the year 1990 and 2000 has applied the said government order prospectively and not retrospectively. He further submitted that the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 3 are based upon cogent material and supported by valid reasons and no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required by this Court.;