Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) THE brief facts of the present case ate that the peti tioner has been continuing to run a fair price shop since 1992. On the basis of some inspection conducted by the Task Force constituted by the District Magistrate, Rampur on 24.6.2006, upon finding certain irregularities, by an or der dated 10.7.2006 the licence of the petitioner was placed under suspension. THEreafter, by an order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the respondent No. 3, the li cence of the petitioner has been cancelled. Challenging the said order, the pe titioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on 30.4.2008. During the pendency of the ap peal, the respondent No. 5 had been granted the licence on 18.5.2007. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 11.9.2006 and 30.4.2008 as well as order dated 18.5.2007, this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Anuj Kumar for the respondent No. 4 and Sri Sanjay Kumar for re spondent No. 5. Time to file counter affidavit was granted. Respondent No. 5 has filed counter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. The State authorities have not filed counter affidavit despite time having been granted on several occasions. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the charges, on which the fair price licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, are absolutely vague and even the show cause notice given along with the sus pension order does not give any specific irregularity committed by the peti tioner and the charges are only mentioned in vague and general terms. It is sub mitted that the reply of the petitioner has not been considered at the time of the passing of the impugned orders and that the report of the Task Force could rot have been made the basis for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner especially when it is nowhere disclosed as to who were the members of the Task Force and what was its report. It is contended that the grant of fresh li cence in favour of the respondent No. 5 is totally unjustified, inasmuch as the appeal of the petitioner was pending when the fresh licence was granted and in case if the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside, the respondent No. 5 would not have any right to run the fair price shop. Learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that the impugned order is perfectly justified as it has been passed on the basis of the findings given by the Task Force, which had raided the fair price shop of the peti tioner. He has also submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the authori ties below need not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he relies on the decisions rendered in the cases of Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. 2008 (72) ALR 27 and Jawahar PrasaZ v. State of U.P. 2005 (59) ALR 665.
(3.) SRI Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel and has prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and he be permitted to continue to run the fair price shop on the basis of the licence granted in his favour on 18.5.2007. From a perusal of the communication dated 10.7.2006 whereby the li cence of the petitioner was placed under suspension and he was required to sub mit his reply, it appears that the charges against the petitioner were as under: 1. That the petitioner keeps back the ration cards of the BPL and Antyodaya class card holders and does not return the same. 2. That the distribution of food articles and sugar was not being made to the BPL card holders. 3. The proper distribution of essential items was not being done to Antyodaya class card holders. 4. That the kerosene oil was distributed after a month or two, at the rate of Rs. 11/- per liter, which was higher than the scheduled rate.;