JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner’s father was appointed an authorised dealer of fair price shop in the year 1976 under a contract with the State of U.P. The distribution is now regulated by the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004. His shop is situate in Katra, a busy commercial locality in the city of Allahabad. In the year 1993 the shop was transferred to the petitioner. 3. The shop was inspected by an inspecting party of the civil supplies department on 10.2.2005. It is alleged that stocks were found to be correct but the inspecting party took away the sales register of the period 1.8.2004 to 31.1.2005. The petitioner, however, was not given the receipts, either on the same day or on the next day, when he met the Addl. District Magistrate. In the inspection note it was stated that the stock and rate board was not displayed, and that not a single card holder was present, whereas the dealer had entered a good amount of kerosene oil distributed on that day upto the time of inspection. On that date 13 fair price shops were inspected between 11.50 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Notice was given to the petitioner on 16.2.2005 to produce the stock and sales register for a period of 3 months. The petitioner informed the Addl. District Magistrate that the registers were already taken away by the inspecting party. The petitioner alleges that he was asked for bribe, to clear his name. He, however, did not agree to the demand. He has also alleged that one Shri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal was having a dispute with the petitioner. He was keeping a grudge and had made complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply. It is contended that without considering his explanation the Sub Divisional Officer cancelled his authorization. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad on 9th July, 2007. The petitioner has made serious allegations against the office of the District Supply Officer, Allahabad and the corruption prevailing in the supply office with which we are not concerned. He had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 59735 of 2006 challenging the order by which his licence was suspended. The writ petition was dismissed on 3.11.2006 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. He had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 59735 of 2006 challenging the order by which his licence was suspended. The writ petition was dismissed on 3.11.2006 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. 4. The Commissioner, Allahabad Division considered the grounds of challenge against the cancellation order. He has found that large number of card holders (the names and card numbers are given in the appellate order) were not distributed kerosene oil. The entries on the ration cards were incomplete. The Commissioner has confirmed the findings that the appellant had shown the distribution of kerosene oil without actually distributing the same for which complaints were made by Shri Ajay Veer Singh, Smt. Kalawati, Shri Mahesh Prasad and others on 30.7.2002. It was also found that out of 465 the 343 cards were found to be fraudulent, and that the stock and sale registers were not produced. The submission that the supplementary charge-sheet was not received by the petitioner was also considered. The Commissioner found that the supplementary charge-sheet was issued on 23.8.2006 to give reply within three days. The petitioner read the supplementary charge-sheet and refused to accept the same, on which the supplementary charge-sheet was served by the Supply Inspector on 30.8.2006 by affixation. The petitioner did not give any reply to the supplementary charges. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is large scale corruption in the office of the Addl. District Magistrate, Civil Supplies, and the District Supply Officer, Allahabad. There are thousands of bogus cards and that unless the shop keeper would pay the bribe, he cannot survive. The inspection was made in a great hurry. The inspecting party could not have inspected thirteen shops in just two hours. The records were taken away by the inspecting party. The supplementary charge-sheet was not served and that in any case three days’ time was not sufficient to give reply to the charges in the supplementary charge-sheet. Shri Jaiswal further submits that charge of bogus cards, cannot be sustained, as large number of card holders were evicted from the premises occupied by them by the district administration after the shop was suspended and that the petitioner was not associated with the inspection to satisfy that genuine card holders were attached to his shop and were distributed scheduled commodities. 6. 6. The Standing Counsel has relied upon findings recorded by the District Supply Officer in his order dated 2nd September, 2006. He would submit that the petitioner had committed serious irregularities. He did not produce the distribution register and that by the time of inspection he has shown distribution of substantial quantity of kerosene oil, whereas the consumers were not found present on his shop. The petitioner did not give reply to the supplementary charge-sheet. Further he submits that 16 cards were found to be issued on the address on which no one resides. 7. The distribution of scheduled commodities and the kerosene oil is made by the authorised distributor under a contract with the State Government under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. The contract on standard form may give petitioner a right to challenge the orders, if he has been treated arbitrarily or that his authorization has been cancelled without giving any notice or considering his explanation. He may also complain that fair and reasonable procedure was not followed in cancelling the authorization. The sufficiency or insufficiency of material or the fact whether the scheduled commodities were actually distributed by him and would not be a ground to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This Court while exercising equitable jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into merits of the charges as an appellate Court to consider whether scheduled commodities were distributed equitably on specified price and whether the petitioner had given adequate reply to the charges levelled against him. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner, to which he submitted reply. The finding that he refused to receive the supplementary charge-sheet after reading the same and that it was pasted on his door, are not specifically denied. The District Supply Officer and the Commissioner have found that there were complaints against the petitioner and that on verification large number of card holders were not found to be residing on the spot. These findings are findings of fact, which do not call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The District Supply Officer and the Commissioner were not satisfied with the explanation. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. ————