Allahabad High Court
Sheo Bhan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others on 2 January, 2018
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (AFR) Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42849 of 2013 Petitioner :- Sheo Bhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendra Singh,Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.R.J. Pandey,S.K. Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Respondent No. 3, Sub Divisional Officer, Chhibramau, District Kannauj cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner and the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially a preliminary fact finding inquiry was conducted by Naib Tehsildar, Chhibramau who submitted an on spot inspection report dated 11.06.2012 wherein he had recorded statements of cardholders that the petitioner did not distribute the Essential Commodities/Scheduled Commodities in accordance with law. For the past ten years the petitioner had been habitual of measuring/weighing the Scheduled Commodities irregularly and also charging higher price. The cardholders had refrained from complaining against the petitioner only because the petitioner had two sons who acted as village strongmen and the cardholders were afraid of them. The petitioner was required to get the distribution of Scheduled Commodities certified by the Village Administrative Committee consisting of Area Lekhpal and Gram Panchayat Secretary but he avoided getting signatures of the Village Administrative Committee and instead certified of his own the distribution by forging signatures of the members of Administrative Committee. He used to open the Fair Price Shop only for one day for distribution of the Scheduled Commodities and if a cardholder failed to appear on the particular day when the Fair Price Shop was opened, he would not be given any food-grain etc. or Scheduled Commodities after closure of the shop on second or third day. The petitioner was guilty of not only overpricing but also shortweighting the Scheduled Commodities and the kerosene was distributed only on a monthly basis. It was found by the Naib Tehsildar that the complaints mostly relating to shortfall in measuring and overpricing were correct by examination of Ration Cards of the cardholders of the village concerned.
4. On the basis of the said preliminary fact finding inquiry dated 11.06.2012 the Sub Divisional Magistrate had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 12th of June, 2012 in which he was asked to submit his Stock Register and other documents if he had any, in support of his case that the preliminary fact finding inquiry report was wrongly submitted by the Naib Tehsildar.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 15.06.2012 along with affidavits of various villagers in support of his case. There was no complaint by the villagers against the petitioner but only because of election rivalry with the present Gram Pradhan, the petitioner was being harassed. A copy of the joint statements along with signatures of BPL and Antyodaya cardholders was also submitted in support of the petitioner's explanation and also the report of the officer concerned who was directed by the Sub Divisional Officer to certify the correct distribution of Essential Commodities was submitted by the petitioner.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that his explanation was not considered and an order was passed cancelling his Fair Price Shop Licence on 09.08.2012. Against such order dated 09.08.2012 the petitioner preferred an Appeal No. 374 of 2012 which was allowed by the Commissioner and the order dated 09.08.2012 was set aside only on the ground that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the Sub Divisional Officer and only the preliminary fact finding report of Naib Tehsildar was relied upon in passing the order of cancellation of the Fair Price Shop licence.
7. After the appeal was allowed on 10.09.2012 and the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer concerned to give proper opportunity of hearing and to consider petitioner's explanation, before passing a fresh order the petitioner, the petitioner received a notice dated 12th of September, 2012 directing him to submit his explanation with respect to various charges levelled against him in the show cause notice already issued to him earlier.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the notice dated 12.09.2012 the petitioner submitted another explanation on 20.09.2012 along with an affidavit of one complainant Kishan Swaroop son of Lajja Ram, resident of Gyaspur,Tehsil Chhibramau.
9. The counsel for the petitioner states that despite the explanation submitted by the petitioner and being on record in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, the said explanation was not considered at all and again order of cancellation was passed on 17th of October, 2012 this time relying upon the affidavits submitted by 69 cardholders along with copies of the Ration Cards issued to them to show that the petitioner was actually charging much more than what was required under the Scheduled Commodities Distribution Control Order and also distributing the such commodities irregularly. The Licensing Authority has in the order dated 17th of October, 2012 observed that despite notice issued on 12th of September, 2012 the petitioner has not submitted his reply and it may be presumed that he has nothing more to say in the matter. In the order cancelling the Fair Price Shop Licence the Licensing Authority has also referred to several other incidents of irregularities being found earlier in the distribution of the Scheduled Commodities by the petitioner which could not have been referred to while cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence as according to the counsel for the petitioner the earlier conduct of the licencee was not required to be taken into account at the time of passing of cancellation order say with respect to the specific case of irregularities as found in the preliminary fact finding inquiry conducted by the Naib Tehsildar.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that copies of the affidavits of 69 cardholders which were relied upon by the Sub Divisional Officer were not given to the petitioner for perusal and explanation and no opportunity as required under the law was given and the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
11. Aggrieved against the order dated 17th of October, 2012 the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Division concerned, which has been rejected summarily on the ground that repeated complaints have been received against the conduct of licensee and from the statements of cardholders of the village as recorded in their affidavits, it is evident that the petitioner is incorrigible and continuously and repeatedly overcharging for the Scheduled Commodities and also there is a short-weighting of such Scheduled Commodities. The Commissioner who is the Appellate Authority in the order impugned dated 03.07.2013 has not taken into account of the grounds of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner.
12. The counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others: (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947. I have perused the said judgment which relates to the suspension of Fair Price Shop licence in view of the government order dated 29th of July, 2004 and it has been held therein that opportunity of hearing to the licensee before passing of the suspension order is not mandatory.
13. The counsel for petitioner states that the observations made in the said judgment apply to a case of cancellation of Fair Price Shop licence also. The order of Licensing Authority has to be reasoned and speaking and the charges complained of against the licensee based on which the order of suspension has been passed are to be specifically mentioned in the order of suspension.
14. It is the case of the petitioner that a non reasoned and non speaking order which does not mention the charges complained of amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power as has been held by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Puran Singh (supra).
15. The said judgment of the Full Bench of this Court has been perused carefully by me and it cannot be said to be applicable to the facts of the case as pleaded herein above by the counsel for the petitioner.
16. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon four other judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court which are as follows:-
17. The Judgment and order dated 01.08.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 60664 of 2009: Daroga Lal Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and others wherein this Court was considering the case of petitioner where the Deputy Collector had not at all examined any of the records i.e. either ration cards or the distribution/sale register to find out whether therefrom it is evident that the food-grains have not been distributed by the licensee therein regularly. Moreover this Court has observed that onus lay upon the authorities concerned to prove that the licensee is overcharging and not vice versa and it had set aside the order of cancellation on the ground that the Licensing Authority has wrongly observed that the licensee did not adduce any evidence to show that he is not overcharging. The Licensing Authority himself did not refer to any evidence on the basis whereof it could be shown that the petitioner was charging a higher price than the price that was fixed for the Scheduled Commodities. From a perusal of the said judgment, it is evident that the same is inapplicable to the facts of the present case of the petitioner.
18. The counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgment and order dated 12.11.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 16103 of 2013 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has relied upon a Division Bench judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 58470 of 2005 (Harpal Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 26.2.2008, reported in 2008(3) ADJ 36 (DB) which has decided the controversy regarding the applicability of government order dated 29th of July, 2004 after the passing of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order notified on 20.12.2004. The Division Bench has held that the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order dated 20.12.2004 has not superceded the government order dated 29th of July, 2004 and both the orders operate in different fields although the object of both the orders are the same i.e. to ensure regular and equitable distribution of the Essential Commodities to the people. As such, the government order dated 29.07.2004 had prescribed the procedure to be followed by the Licensing Authority in suspending or cancelling a licence. It is crystal clear that while suspending or cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence the prescribed procedure has to be followed even after the U.P. Distribution of Scheduled Commodities Order dated 20.12.2004 came into force. The Division Bench on the basis of the government order dated 29th of July, 2004 came to the conclusion that the suspension order did not disclose at all that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bareilly in the aforesaid case had suspended the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner therein on the basis of the oral complaint of the villagers and on the basis of an inquiry held behind the back of the petitioner where it was found that the shop was closed and rate board showing the fair prices of the Scheduled Commodities was not put outside the shop. The Licensing Authority had believed the statements of the cardholders that the licensee was charging Rs.12/- per litre that was apparently in excess of scheduled price of kerosene. The Division Bench had observed in Har Pal Singh (supra) that the suspension order did not disclose that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his reply as to why petitioner's licence may not be cancelled.
19. Another judgment of this Court passed in Writ - C No. 60978 of 2005 : Smt. Alka Rani Versus State of U.P. and others decided on 14.09.2005 has also been referred to in the judgment and order dated 12.11.2014 which says that in the absence of following the principles of natural justice the licensee cannot be relegated to an alternative remedy of filing appeal against suspension order.
20. In another judgment the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of the facts as disclosed by the writ petitioner namely Jitendra Kumar in Writ - C No. 16103 of 2013 has found his case to be covered by the observations made by the Division bench in Harpal (supra) and Alka Rani (supra).
21. I am in respectful agreement with the observations made in the Division Bench judgment in Harpal (supra) and Alka Rani (supra); but the case of the petitioner as pleaded by his counsel and as narrated herein above is completely different and therefore, the said judgments are inapplicable to the facts of the petitioner's case.
22. The counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance upon another judgment and order dated 04.09.2015 passed in Writ - C No. 2299 of 2013: Kishun Versus State of U.P. through Secretary and three others wherein on the basis of the government order dated 29.07.2004 read with the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order dated 20.12.2004 as referred to in the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh Versus State of U.P. and others, (2010) 3 ADJ 569 a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that a full-fledged inquiry against a Fair Price Shop dealer after serving a charge-sheet with regard to date, time and place where hearing should take place must be held on the basis of the paragraphs - 2, 4 and 5 of the government order dated 29th of July, 2004. This Court has been pleased to set aside the order of cancellation impugned in the said writ petition on the ground that no full-fledged inquiry in the matter was conducted and the petitioner was not accorded reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing before cancelling the said licence.
23. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Abu Baker Versus State of U.P. and others reported in (2010) 6 ADJ 339 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court wherein reliance was placed upon a judgment rendered in D.K. Yadav Versus J.M.A. Industries, (1999) 3 SCC 259 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and a judgment rendered in the case of National Building Construction Corporation Versus S. Raghunathan : (1998) 7 SCC 66, and it has been held that copies of the statements of Antyodaya cardholders and BPL cardholders should be given to the licensee and he should be given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses also before passing an order of cancellation of the Fair Price Shop licence. I am afraid the principles of Natural Justice as required for conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the government servants are not required to be followed in so far as suspension/cancellation of Fair Price Shop licence is concerned. The principles of Natural Justice are not embodied Rules and not straitjacket formula to be applied in every case indiscriminately. These principles are not capable of precise definition and vary inapplicability on facts and circumstances of each case. The underlying principle of Natural Justice evolved under common law is to check arbitrariness in action. These principles imply only a duty to act fairly. In case of grant of licence of fair price shop, the matter belongs to the realm of contract and is in the nature of grant of a privilege. In A.s. Motors Private Ltd. Versus Union of India: 2013 (10) SCC 114 the Supreme Court has observed that the applicability of principles of Natural Justice is contextual to the nature of dispute.
24. The Supreme Court has relied upon a three Judges' decision in Ajit K. Nag Versus Indian Oil Corporation (2005) 7 SCC 764, wherein it has been observed thus: "........ We are aware of the normal rule that a person must have a fair trial and a fair appeal and he cannot be asked to be satisfied with an unfair trial and a fair appeal. We are also conscious of the general principle that pre-decisional hearing is better and should always be preferred to post-decisional hearing. We are further aware that it has been stated that apart from Laws of Men, Laws of God also observe the rule of audi alteram partem. It has been stated that the first hearing in human history was given in the Garden of Eden. God did not pass sentence upon Adam and Eve before giving an opportunity to show cause as to why they had eaten the forbidden fruit. (See. R.V. University of Cambridge, (1723) 1 STR 557 = 93 ER 698.) But we are also aware that the principles of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a straitjacket. They must yield to and change with exigencies of situations. They must be confined within their limits and cannot be allowed to run wild. It has been stated: To do a great right after all, it is permissible sometimes to do a little wrong. (Per Mukharji, C.J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613, SCC at p.705, para 124.) While interpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. In our opinion, the approach of the court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than precedential." The right to cross examine witnesses is usually given in disciplinary proceedings against Government Servants who initially enter service on contract but later their conditions of service are governed by Status. The Service Rules provide a definite procedure for holding Disciplinary Proceedings.
25. With respect to a fair price shop licensee, the relationship with executive authorities is purely contractual arising out of grant of a privilege reasonable opportunity in such cases would only be restricted to adoption of a fair procedure, where the licensee is made aware of the complaints against him in the form of charges spelt out in the show cause notice and the details of card holders with their Ration Card numbers so that the licensee can produce documentary evidence if any with regard to distribution of scheduled commodities in prescribed quantities at prescribed rates to such card holders.
26. In view of the observations made by a Full Bench of this Court in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 in paragraph 50 thereof, the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court placing reliance upon the government order dated 29.07.2004 seem to be per incurium. The observations made by the Hon'ble Full Bench in paragraph 50 of the judgment rendered in Puran Singh (supra) are being quoted herein below:-
"On the basis of the above analysis we answer both the questions so referred as below :
(i) Before suspension of fair price agreement it is not mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing and thus on the plea of its violation, the order of suspension is not liable to be set aside.
(ii) Division Bench judgments in Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (1) ALJ 407 and Harpal v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2008 (4) ALJ 10 holding that opportunity is must does not lay down the correct law.
Division Bench judgment in the case of Gopi v. State reported in 2007 (5) ALJ 367 lays down the correct law that grant of opportunity is not necessary..................."
27. The government order dated 29.07.2004 that has been relied upon by the two Coordinate Benches of this Court in holding that an opportunity of hearing is must and the procedure prescribed for suspension/cancellation should be followed to the letter.The government order dated 29th of July, 2004 relates to the procedure to be followed for cancellation/suspension of the Fair Price Shop licence and has provided that whenever suspension/cancellation of Fair Price Shop licence has to be undertaken by the Licensing Authority it should not be done only on the basis of the complaint received from some person. If a complaint is received, then, a preliminary fact finding inquiry should be conducted and if it is found in the preliminary fact finding inquiry that a prima facie case is made out against the licensee which may lead to a valid conclusion that the misconduct complained of is of such grave nature that may lead to cancellation of Fair Price Shop licence, then only, suspension order be passed which should be a reasoned and speaking suspension order and should contain all facts that have come out in the preliminary fact finding inquiry so that the licensee can have an opportunity to rebut the prima facie conclusions arrived at on the basis of such preliminary fact finding inquiry.
28. This government order further says that the Licensing Authority may suspend the Fair Price Shop licence of a licensee also on the basis of an on the spot inspection/surprise inspection carried out of the shop concerned if some grave irregularity comes to light during such surprise inspection or if it is found that the licensee is indulging in an offence of selling the scheduled commodities illegally or black-marketting as described in Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or Orders issued from time to time in this regard. In case of such suspension also the order that has to be passed by the Licensing Authority should be a reasoned and speaking order making apparent the grave irregularity found in the said on the spot inspection.
29. The Government Order dated 29th of July,2004 also provides therein that in case of suspension/cancellation of the Fair Price Shop the ration cards of the said shop should be attached to some other shop, either of the same village or nearby village, so as to avoid any difficulty being faced by the ration card holders and the inquiry that has to be conducted after such suspension should be tried to be concluded within a period of one month and the final orders that have to be passed, should be passed on the basis of the explanation submitted by the licensee and in case it is found that the licensee is unduly causing delay in submitting his reply and has not submitted any reply at all, then, the Licensing Authority may pass cancellation order taking into account all facts mentioned in the preliminary fact finding inquiry. The orders so passed should also be reasoned and speaking order.
30. In the government order dated 29.07.2004 in paragraphs 6 it has been specifically mentioned that in passing a final order of punishment the graveness of the misconduct complained of should be taken into account as also the past conduct of the licensee concerned to determine the quantum of the punishment and cancellation order should not be passed without application of mind to the gravity of the misconduct complained of.
31. After such cancellation order is passed then within a period of one month thereafter the vacancy should be advertised and proper procedure followed for reallotment of the said Fair Price Shop to avoid any difficulty to the card holders of the village/area concerned. As per paragraph - 7 of the said government order no shop should be allowed to remain attached to another shop for a period of more than two months and within a period of two months from the date of suspension/cancellation of the licence, reallotment proceeding should be completed.
32. The government order dated 29th of July, 2004 which has been relied upon by the two Division Benches and two Coordinate Benches of this Court refers mainly to the procedure of giving fair hearing and reasonable opportunity to the Fair Price Shop licensee before cancellation/suspension orders are passed. The principle laid down by the judgments of this Court regarding the fair opportunity of hearing being given to the licensee concerned cannot be denied and admittedly opportunity of hearing is required in such cases. But the same degree of proof of misconduct as required for holding a government servant guilty in disciplinary proceedings is not required and neither the procedure as prescribed in U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 or in the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 is required to be followed.
33. A fair and reasonable opportunity in compliance of the principles of natural justice would only mean for the Fair Price Shop licensee to be made aware of the charges against him of any irregularity complained of and the licensee being given opportunity thereafter to submit his reply/explanation to the said charges. It does not require the copies of the statements of the card holders or copies of affidavits submitted by card holders complaining of the irregularities in the distribution of scheduled commodities to be given to the licensee concerned. No opportunity is required to be given of cross examination of the witnesses as has been observed in the judgment rendered in Abu Baker Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (6) ADJ 339 and Writ - C No. 22299 of 2013 Kishun Versus State of U.P. and 3 others decided on 04.09.2015.
34. The judgments of the aforesaid two Coordinate Benches were rendered without looking into the provisions of the government order dated 29.07.2004, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and placed before this Court and can only be said to have been rendered in the ignorance of the statutory provisions and thus, they were rendered per incurium.
35. With regard to the facts of the present case, from a perusal of the cancellation order dated 17th of October, 2012, it is evident that the Licensing Authority had first got a preliminary fact finding inquiry conducted in the matter by Naib Tehsildar, Chhibramau, District Kannauj who submitted his report on 11.06.2012. On the basis of the said preliminary fact finding inquiry report dated 11.06.2012 several charges of irregularities on various counts were mentioned in the show cause notice which was given to the petitioner thereafter on 12th of June, 2012. The petitioner submitted his explanation which was not considered and cancellation order was passed on 09.08.2012, which cancellation order was challenged in Appeal No. 374 of 2012 by the petitioner and the order of cancellation was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 10.09.2012.
36. After the order dated 10.09.2012 remanded the matter to the Licensing Authority for fresh consideration on merit, another notice was issued to the petitioner on 12th of September, 2012 asking him to further submit an explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.09.2012. The explanation of the petitioner was considered along with the affidavit of one complainant Kishan Swarup son of Lajja Ram submitted by the petitioner, but the Licensing Authority has found on the basis of the said explanation also that the petitioner was indeed guilty of various irregularities complained of by the cardholders against him.
37. It has been found that there were 139 BPL cardholders, 87 Antyodaya cardholders and 244 APL cardholders attached to the shop of the petitioner. Distribution was done to all such 470 cardholders on 9th and 10th of each month as was evident from the Sale Register for the past six months submitted by the petitioner. The sale register did not show as to the amount charged for each of the commodities so distributed. It was virtually impossible to distribute wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene to 470 cardholders after weighing and measuring the said essential commodities and making entries in the Sale Register in two working days. The Sale Register was hence believed by the Licensing Authority.
38. It has also been found by the Licensing Authority that for the month of December, 2011, for a total of 470 card holders, for a quantity of 3.5 litres per card, 1603 litres of kerosene oil was distributed by the licensee, whereas 1650 litres of kerosene was lifted by the licensee from the wholesale distributor. There was no mention in the sale register as to what happened to 47 litres of kerosene that remained with him after such distribution.
39. Even for 3.5 litres of kerosene oil an entry of Rs.54/- has been made, which is a price much more than the price of the scheduled commodities as fixed by the government for sale of the kerosene oil to the cardholders. Even if the explanation of the petitioner is taken to be correct, the irregularity is apparent on the part of the petitioner from the fact that at a quantity of 3.5 litres per card only 1435 litres of kerosene oil was distributed to 410 cardholders, whereas the petitioner had lifted 1650 litres of kerosene oil for the month of February, 2012. Thus conclusion was correctly drawn from the perusal of Stock Register. It has not been mentioned by the petitioner in his explanation as to what happened to 210 litres of remaining kerosene oil for the period concerned.
40. With regard to the APL cardholders also, for the months of January and February, it has been found that 10.96 quintals of wheat was lifted by the licensee but only 5 kilograms of wheat was distributed per card holder and for the remaining left over wheat, no explanation has been submitted by the licensee. The Stock Register and the Sale Register were carefully examined by the Licensing Authority for Antyodaya cardholders and BPL cardholders also, and he found that such irregularities were also present with regard to the distribution of the scheduled commodities for the BPL and Antyodaya card holders. Only some of the BPL and Antyodaya card holders had been distributed scheduled commodities by the petitioner. It was alleged by some cardholders that the licensee lived outside the village. The total quantity meant for distribution had been lifted by him but was not distributed. What happened to the remaining quantity of the scheduled commodities was not mentioned in the explanation submitted by the licensee.
41. At the time of passing the cancellation order the Licensing Authority has also taken into account the past misconduct of the licensee which he could validly take into account as per the provisions of the government order dated 29th of July, 2004. It has been found by the Licensing Authority that repeated complaints of irregularity and illegalities in distribution of scheduled commodities had been lodged in the past also and therefore, he has found the licensee incorrigible and has cancelled the Fair Price Shop Licence of the petitioner thereafter.
42. The Appellate Authority after looking into the record has expressed his satisfaction that repeated misconduct/irregularity has been noticed by the Licensing Authority in the conduct of the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner and his licence has been rightly cancelled and he has rejected the Appeal of the petitioner thereafter.
43. I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the orders impugned warranting interference in exercise of extra - ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
44. The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
45. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 02.01.2018 LBY