- (1.) The petitioner-firm by way of this civil writ petition has challenged the legality and validity of the order Annexure P. 7, by which its whole-sale licence, as well as retail sale licence, of kerosene was cancelled on the basis of certain allegations. In appeal, the Deputy Secretary Finance, Chandigarh Administration, vide Annexure P.5 dated 27.5.1987, set aside the order of the District Food & Supplies Officer, Chandigarh, to the extent of cancellation of wholesale kerosene licence. However, that part of the order by which the retail licence was cancelled, has been upheld. The petitioner-firm, in this writ petition, has challenged the order Annexure P.9 on several grounds. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P.9 on the short ground that the authorities below in similar circumstances, have only ordered the forfeiture of security deposit by passing orders Annexure P.10 and P.11. This point can be considered by this Court as has been taken in the replication, in view of this Court's order. This Court, in presence of learned counsel for the parties, has perused Annexures P.10 and P.11. In Annexure P.10, the allegation against M/s Mohan Provision Store, Chandigarh was also this that the said firm was guilty of contravention of condition No. 3 of the Punjab Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 and by finding the depot-holder guilty of the charge, the security to the extent of Rs. 400/- was forfeited. The following is the operative part of the order passed in the case of M/s Mohan Provision Store : "The depot holder, by not maintaining the sale register kerosene oil, has not only contravened condition No. 4 of the conditional kerosene oil licence, issued to them under the provision of the Punjab Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 but has violated condition No. 9 of the agreement also executed by them with this department. Now, therefore, I, S.K. Shahi, Distt. Food & Supplies Officer, U.T., Chandigarh, exercising the powers conferred upon me under condition No. 12 of the agreement, do hereby order for the forfeiture of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred only) from the security deposited by M/s Mohan Provision Store, Depot Holder, Sector 22, Chandigarh, with severe warning to be careful in future." Similarly, while dealing yet another depot-holder, engaged in kerosene, namely M/s Tilak Raj Vijay Kumar, Depot Holder, Sector 23, Chandigarh, security forfeiture to the tune of Rs. 500/- was ordered by passing the order Annexure P.11, the operative part of which is reproduced below : ".... The depot holder thus by not maintaining the sale register correctly has contravened the condition No. 3 of conditional kerosene licence issued to them besides violated the terms and conditions of the agreement duly executed by them with this Department. Now, therefore, I, S.K. Shahi, District Food & Supplies Officer, Chandigarh, exercising the powers conferred upon me under condition No. 12 of the agreement, do hereby order for the forfeiture of Rs. 500/-(Rs. five hundred only) from the security deposited by M/s Tilak Raj Vijay Kumar, Depot Holder, Sector 23, Chandigarh, with a severe warning to be careful in future ...." It is not disputed before this Court that in case of the petitioner also, the case made out by the Department was that condition No. 3 of the Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 has been violated. In view of this matter, this Court is of the view that the respondent-authorities could not inflict an altogether different punishment which was not done in the case of the other two kerosene dealers. The law requires equal treatment of all who have committed errors of similar kind. In the light of the foregoing observations, this civil writ petition is allowed. The order of cancellation is set aside and the District Food & Supplies Officer, U.T., Chandigarh is directed to order forfeiture of that much of security deposit which he considers appropriate, in his discretion. The dealers-licence is, however, ordered to be restored forthwith.
(2.) Before parting with this judgment, it is observed that the right of the Department to go ahead with the prosecution would not be affected by this judgment. No costs.;