- (1.) THIS appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 8.2.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2182 of 1997(R) whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and decline to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority by which fair price shop licence was cancelled.
(2.) THE appellant who was running a fair price shop dealing in foodgrains, Sugar, Kerosene Oil and other articles in the District of Bokaro. Sometimes in 1994, complaint was made against the appellant for selling foodgrains at higher price and report to that effect was obtained from the Block Supply Officer -cum - Supply Inspector, Chandankiyari. The Inspector after making due enquiry and after considering the written statement made by the consumers, reported that the appellant was selling foodgrains at higher price. Consequently, proceeding for cancellation of licence was initiated against the appellant and order of cancellation was passed by the Licencee Authority. Against the aforesaid cancellation, the appellant preferred an appeal before Deputy Magistrate -cum - Collector, Bokaro who is appellate authority. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority and the order of cancellation was affirmed. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 253/96(R). In that writ petition, petitioners contention was that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to him before passing the impugned order. This Court disposed of the said writ application on 2.9.1996 and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant in compliance of the order passed by this Court. The appellate authority after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, dismissed the appeal, holding that the order of cancellation was perfectly legal and valid. The appellant challenged the order passed by the appellate authority in the aforementioned C.W.J.C. 2182 of 1997 (R) which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
(3.) MR . A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the inspection report, which was the basis of the initiation proceeding, was not supplied to the petitioner - appellant in order to revert the allegation. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.;