Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing order dated 18.7.1988 Annexure P-7, passed by respondent No. 4 cancelling the depot of the petitioner and forfeiting the security amount of Rs. 1000/-as also order dated 27.12.1988. Annexure P-9 whereby the appeal against order Annexure P-7 was dismissed.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a licence No. RTK/HFA/824 dated 29.1.1987 by the District Food & Supplies Controller, Rohtak, authorising him to purchase, sell or store for sale food articles-food grains, sugar, khandsaries, Gur and to carry on the aforesaid business as a depot-holder in the aforementioned ration depot. The Deputy Superintendent of Police State Vigilance Cell, Gurgaon vide his letter dated June 15, 1988 asked the Assistant Food and Supplies officer, Rohtak, to inform the depot-holders including the petitioner mentioned in the letter to make available to him stock and sale register of wheat, rice, sugar, palm oil for the months of December, 1987 and January, 1988 and to send him the report, if any, in case record was not available so that enquiry could be completed. A copy of the said letter Annexure P-3 is annexed to the petition. Through as per letter dated June 15, 1988 the depot holders were to make available to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, the stock and sale registers for the months of December, #987 and January, 1988 yet to the great surprise of the petitioner the aforesaid Deputy Superintendent of Police on June 15, 1988 without giving any intimation to the petitioner seized the following stock registers : (i) Stock register of sugar from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988 ; (ii) Sale register of sugar from December, 1987 to January, 1988 ; (iii) Stock register of rice from 1.3.1987 to 31.3.1988 ; (iv) Sale register of rice from 12/87 to 1/88 ; (v) Stock register of palm oil from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988 ; (vi) Sale register of palm oil from 12/87 to 1/88 ; (vii) Stock register of wheat from 1.4.1987 to 31.3-1988 ; (viii) Sale register of wheat from 1/88 of the petitioners depot. At the time of the seizure of the record, the petitioner was not present and the aforesaid record was seized from another person present in the depot who could not trace the sale register of wheat for the month of December, 1987. The said person requested for grant of time to produce the same as the petitioner would trace the aforesaid register after returning to the depot. On return to the depot, the petitioner also made a similar request. The said request for grant of time for production of register of wheat for the month of December, 1987 was granted. The petitioner took the aforesaid register to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on June 19, 1988 but he refused to take the register and rather told the petitioner that the same would be called for as and when required. Thereafter, the District Food and Supplies Controller, Rohtak, respondent No. 4, issued a show-cause notice dated June 21, 1988 to the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, vide his letter dated June 20, 1988 had written to respondent No. 4, that the petitioner did not give the sale register of wheat for the month of December, 1987 for checking though the said record was asked for by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on June, 14, 1988 and June 15, 1988 and thereafter on June 19, 1988 and, therefore, the petitioner had violated the agreement which has been entered into by him with the department at the time of grant of licence. The explanation of the petitioner was called for as to why his depot should not be suspended/cancelled and the security amount of Rs. 1000/- be forfeited. The petitioner duly submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice explaining the entire position. Respondent No. 4 cancelled the depot of the petitioner and forfeited the security amount of Rs. 1000/- vide order dated July 7, 1988. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of cancellation and forfeiture of the security amount to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated December 27, 1988. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the appellate authority had not passed a speaking order and had also not considered the points raised by the appellant.
(3.) I have perused the paper book. From the paper book I find that the respondents have not filed any written statement. As such, the contention of the petitioner remains un-rebutted. From the perusal of the order dated December 27, 1988, it is observed that respondent No. 3 has not passed a speaking order and has not dealt with the points raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. It appears that while passing the impugned order the appellate authority has not applied its mind. As such, the order of the appellate authority is quashed. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order after dealing with all the points raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. Respondent No. 3. shall also allow the petitioner to produce the register of wheat for the month of December, 1987. This writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Petition allowed.;