- (1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and Mr. Modi, counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE appellant was a licensee of a fair price shop. His shop was inspected. It was found that his books of accpunt were not up -to -date. It was also found that there was shortage in sugar stock in the shop premises. Some of the customers linked to that shop also complained that the appellant was over charging. The authority concerned, therefore, issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled for violation of the conditions of the licence. The appellant submitted an explanation. The licensing authority found that the facts established, clearly showed that the conditions of the licence were violated. Thus he cancelled the licence. The appellant filed an appeal. The appellate authority reconsidered the question arising for decision. The appellate authority found that the books of accounts were not properly maintained and there was shortage in sugar stock in the premises. The appellant took the only stand that there was no shortage in the stock of sugar, but that claim could not be accepted in the light of the facts found during the inspection, which admittedly took place in the presence of the appellant. The appellant also produced affidavits, said to be sworn to by the customers linked to the shop of the appellant, stating that they had not given the earlier statements to the effect that the appellant has over charged. The appellate authority considered the acceptability of those affidavits in the context of the statements earlier given by those customers. It came to the conclusion that those affidavits could not be accepted in the circumstances obtaining. The appellate authority found no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the original authority that the appellant was over charging the customers. The appellate authority affirmed the decision of the licensing authority.
(3.) THE appellant challenged the said decision of the appellate authority in W.P. (C) No. 2985 of 2002 before this Court. The learned Single Judge noticed that the main ground urged was that the order of the licensing authority was a routine one and adequate materials were not available to sustain the cancellation of the licence. The learned Single Judge found that on the facts of this case it could not be held that there Was no proper and regular inquiry. The learned Judge also found that the conclusion arrived at by the original authority and affirmed by the appellate authority was proper. The learned Single Judge found that no procedural irregularity was committed by the original authority or by the appellate authority, in passing the respective orders. The learned Single Judge found that the appellate authority has reappraised the entire materials on record and had given an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and recorded findings of fact based on relevant materials and came to the conclusion that there was no justification in interfering with the impugned order in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus the wit petition was dismissed.;