Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) After an inspection was carried out in the fair price public distribution shop bearing Licence No.22/1986 of the petitioner on 14th March 2011 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra cum Licensing Authority, he was served with a show-cause on 17th March 2011 (Annexure-2) interalia alleging (i) petitioner had lifted 2667 liters of kerosene oil on 13th February 2011 but the stock register showed 15 liters which was corrected to 3529 liters on instructions of the respondent no.3; (ii) during physical inspection 97 Liters of kerosene oil were found short while petitioner had given explanation for 3432 Liters of kerosene oil. He had sold 42 Liters of kerosene oil in between; (iii) petitioner had changed the location of his shop from one place to another and (iv) BPL cards of certain consumers were kept with him. The display board of the BPL/Antyodya beneficiaries were not found affixed in front of the shop. Petitioner furnished his explanation on 30th November 2011 vide Annexure-3. The respondent no.3, on being dissatisfied, passed the order dated 8th April 2011 (Annexure-5) canceling his licence. Petitioner approached the appellate authority after obtaining liberty from this Court in W.P.(C) No.3381 of 2011. The appellate authority has also rejected his appeal and confirmed the cancellation of his PDS licence by the impugned order at Annexure-6 dated 22nd April 2013.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations of black-marketing against the petitioner. Petitioner has furnished satisfactory explanation on all counts alleged in the charges. No inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner which is the basis of the show-cause notice. In absence thereof petitioner has been prejudiced from answering the basis, if any of the charges. He has categorically stated that he had not kept any BPL card of any consumer nor are there any complaints of non-delivery of PDS items to any such consumers. The appellate authority, after having considered the explanation of the petitioner, however, has upheld the cancellation of the licence which is wholly disproportionate to any such irregularities alleged. Petitioner has been operating the fair price shop since 1986. Therefore, some consideration should have been accorded to the case of the petitioner also on sympathetic ground.;