JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Kanpur Division, Kanpur (respondent No. 2) and the Order dated 29.4.2006 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah (respondent No. 4). 2. It appears that the petitioner was licensee of the fair price shop in question in village-Bhattpura, Gram Panchayat Biyari Bhattpura. On the basis of complaint received regarding the alleged irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities by the petitioner, an inspection of the fair price shop in question was made by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah alongwith the Regional Supply Inspector at 9.40 a.m. on 4.4.2006. As a consequence of the said Inspection, an Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 was issued by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah whereby the licence of the petitioner in respect of the fair price shop in question was suspended, and the petitioner was directed to submit within a week his written explanation alongwith evidence in respect of the charges mentioned in the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006, and also submit the stock and distribution register for the last three months in regard to all the schemes (Yojanas) in respect of the fair price shop in question. 3. It was, inter alia, stated in the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 that at the time of inspection on 4.4.2006, the fair price shop in question was found closed, and the notice-board was not found exhibited outside the shop nor was the stock and rate board found to be filled in; and that the petitioner was sent for, whereupon the petitioner came and opened the fair price shop in question for inspection. 4. 4. It was, inter alia, further stated in the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 that as per the stock register produced by the petitioner at the time of inspection, the petitioner had lifted on 28.2.2006, 9.00 quintal wheat and 12.00 quintal rice under Antyodaya Ann Yojana in respect of the monthly quota for March 2006, and the petitioner had lifted on 27.3.2006 in respect of the monthly quota for April 2006, 21.90 quintal wheat and 29.20 quintal rice under B.P.L. Yojana, 9.00 quintal wheat, 12.00 quintal rice and 6.15 quintal sugar under Antyodaya Ann Yojana, and 1.89 quintal wheat and 3.78 quintal rice under Mid-Day-Meal Yojana; and that as per the stock register, the distribution of food-grains and sugar lifted for the said two months was not shown in the stock register, and thus, as per the stock register, about 197 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 12 bags 15 kg. sugar should have been available in the stock in the fair price shop in question, but on physical verification of food-grains and sugar, total 95 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 9 bags of sugar were found in the stock on the spot; and that thus, total 102 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 3 bags 15 kg. of sugar were found to be deficient in the stock of the petitioner in the fair price shop in question; and that the weights and weighing balance in the fair price shop in question were not found to be verified for the relevant period by the Weights and Measures Department; and that the prescribed conical litre for measuring kerosene oil was not found in the fair price shop in question, and in its place the petitioner showed a litre-measure without handle on which no verification seal of the Weights and Measures Department was found affixed which showed that while distributing the kerosene oil the petitioner must have been giving less quantity to the cardholders. 5. 5. It was, inter alia, further stated in the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 that the petitioner gave statement that he used to distribute the controlled commodities without ration-cards; and that the petitioner produced a register stating it to be sales-register for the month of March 2006; and that the pages of the said register were not verified by any competent authority or employee, nor was the date and month of the distribution mentioned in the said register. 6. Accordingly, the licence of the petitioner in respect of the fair price shop in question was suspended, and the following charges were levelled against the petitioner : (1) Non-exhibition of the notice-board outside the fair price shop in question. (2) Non-filling in with date the stock and rate board outside the fair price shop in question. (3) Non-verification of the weighing balance and the weights by the Weights and Measures Department, and instead of using conical litre, measuring kerosene oil using a litre-measure which was without norms and without handle and on account of which the cardholders were receiving less quantity of kerosene oil. (4) Distribution of essential commodities without ration-cards. (5) The petitioner had lifted the food-grains (wheat and rice) and sugar as per the quantities mentioned in the stock register but on physical verification 102 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 3 bags 15 kg. of sugar were found to be deficient in the stock available on the spot. Copy of the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 has been filed as part of Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Copy of the Report dated 4.4.2006 submitted by the Regional Supply Inspector, Jaswant Nagar has also been filed as part of Annexure CA-1 to the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. In response to the said Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006, the petitioner submitted his Reply dated 28.4.2006, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. As regards charge No. 1, the petitioner, inter alia, stated in his reply that the notice-board of the petitioner which was in red colour was kept under the “Chajjaa” outside the “Varandah”; and that a notice-board which was black in colour was kept on the wall of the varandah; and that thus, the notice-board of the petitioner was not seen by the concerned officers. As regards charge No. 2, the petitioner, inter alia, stated in his reply that on the date of inspection on 4.4.2006 the petitioner was busy in cutting wheat crop on account of bad weather; and that the petitioner would have opened the fair price shop in question at 10.00 a.m. while the concerned officers reached the fair price shop in question for inspection at 9.00 a.m.; and that the rate and stock entered with chalk on the rate-board a day earlier had become blurred; and that when the fair price shop in question was opened at 8 a.m., the rate and stock board was again filled in. As regards charge No. 3, it was, inter alia, stated that the litre-measure without handle was not used by the petitioner for measuring kerosene oil; and that the kerosene oil had already been distributed before the concerned officers reached the fair price shop in question for inspection, and the litre-measure with handle was lying in an open drum; and that the weighing balance and the weights were verified, and the petitioner was submitting the receipt for the same. As regards charge No. 4, the petitioner, inter alia, stated in his reply that the essential commodities were distributed to certain persons without ration-cards as the petitioner used to distribute the essential commodities on the basis of the list verified by the B.D.O. and as the said persons had lost their ration-cards; and that the photostat copies of the remaining ration-cards were annexed with the reply. As regards charge No. 5, the petitioner, inter alia, stated in his reply that the food-grains distributed by the petitioner were entered in the ration-cards but due to mistake the stock register was not corrected as a close relative of the petitioner had met with an accident, and the petitioner went to Sri Niwas Nursing Home, Agra for getting the said relative admitted; and that the petitioner had distributed 9 quintal wheat and 12 quintal rice for the month of March 2006 under Antyodaya Ann Yojana prior to the festival of Holi, and the same was entered in the ration-cards; and that due to mental tension the petitioner by mistake could not enter the said distribution in the stock-register; and that the remaining bags were distributed in the month of April 2006 which was also entered in the ration-cards; and that as regards the deficiency in the stock of food-grains and sugar, the petitioner had distributed 42 bags in March 2006 to Antyodaya Cardholders, and had distributed on 2nd and 3rd April 2006, 60 bags of food-grains and 1.65 kg. sugar to B.P.L. and Antyodaya Ration Cardholders, and the same were entered in the ration-cards; and that when the petitioner was coming to deposit the sales-register in the office of the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, the same had fallen somewhere on the way, and a First Information Report was lodged in this regard; and that the register which had been given by the petitioner was given under mistake, and the said register did not bear any date or month, and the said register was for the year 2005; and that the petitioner had not committed any irregularity in the distribution; and that alongwith the said reply, the petitioner was submitting 40 affidavits and photostat copies of 49 ration-cards, and an application bearing signatures of 200 cardholders. 7. 7. On a detailed consideration of the material on record, the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah passed the Order dated 29.4.2006 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition), inter alia, holding that the reply submitted by the petitioner was misleading and incorrect; and that the petitioner had taken contradictory and misleading stands regarding the time of opening of the shop; and that the explanation given by the petitioner regarding closure of the shop and non-exhibition of the stock and rate board, was not correct; and that alongwith the reply, the petitioner had submitted a Certificate dated 6.3.2006 issued by Sharma Hardware Iron Store regarding sealing of the weighing balance and the weights but no explanation had been given as to why the weighing balance and the weights bearing the seal of the Weights and Measures Department and the certificate of the said firm were not produced at the time of inspection; and that had the said certificate been available with the petitioner, he must have produced the same at the time of inspection, and thus, it was clear that the petitioner got ante-dated certificate prepared in order to defend himself; and that as regards the explanation of the petitioner that the litre-measure without handle was not used by him for measuring kerosene oil, it had not been explained as to why the said litre-measure without handle was being kept in the fair price shop in question and as to why the prescribed conical litre for measuring kerosene oil was not found in the fair price shop in question, and thus, the explanation of the petitioner was not true; and that as regards the distribution of essential commodities to various persons having no ration-cards, the explanation of the petitioner was that the distribution was done on the basis of a list verified by the B.D.O., and the petitioner had submitted as evidence a list which contained a list of 286 families selected for B.P.L. Yojana and Antyodaya Ann Yojana but the said list did not mention any ration-card number or the number of units nor was there any mention regarding distribution of the essential commodities to persons without ration-cards; and that as regards the deficiency of 102 bags of food-grains and 3.15 quintal of sugar, the explanation of the petitioner was that the same had been distributed to the public but due to mistake the said distribution was not shown in the stock-register, and as regards the sales-register bearing no date or month which had been produced by the petitioner at the time of inspection on 4.4.2006 as a register for the month of March 2006, the petitioner subsequently stated that the same was for the year 2005; and that the explanation of the petitioner was not true as the distribution-register in regard to any period must bear the date and month but the same was not mentioned in the register produced by the petitioner; and that as regards the non-production of the documents pertaining to the last three months, the explanation of the petitioner was that when he was coming to deposit the same in the office of the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah (respondent No. 4) on 25.4.2006, the same fell on the way, and a First Information Report was lodged in this regard; and that the said explanation had been submitted by the petitioner merely to conceal the evidence. 8. It was, inter alia, further held by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah (respondent No. 4) that as per the Government Order, the essential commodities should have been distributed only on the basis of ration-cards; and that as per the stock register, 102 bags of food-grains and 3.15 quintal sugar should have been available in the stock but at the time of inspection, the said quantities of food-grains and sugar were not found available in the stock, and no satisfactory evidence was produced by the petitioner regarding distribution of the said quantities which showed that the petitioner had deliberately sold 102 bags of food-grains and 3.15 quintal sugar in black-market. 9. In view of the said findings, the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah (respondent No. 4) by the Order dated 29.4.2006 cancelled the licence of the petitioner in respect of the fair price shop in question. Copy of the said Order dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah (respondent No. 4) has been filed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. Against the said Order dated 29.4.2006, the petitioner filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 549 of 2006. Copy of the Memorandum of Appeal has been filed as Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition. 10. The Deputy Commissioner (Food), Kanpur Division, Kanpur (respondent No. 2) by the Order dated 7.8.2006 dismissed the said Appeal filed by the petitioner. It was, inter alia, held that the deficiency in the stock of the food-grains etc. found in the fair price shop in question, the use of the litre-measure without handle for measuring kerosene oil instead of conical litre and the non-production of the stock and distribution register in respect of the fair price shop in question were against the objects of public distribution system; and that no interference was called for with the Order dated 29.4.2006 passed by the respondent No. 4. Copy of the said Order dated 7.8.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Kanpur Division, Kanpur (respondent No. 2) has been filed as Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. A supplementary affidavit, sworn on 10.11.2006, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have been filed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. A supplementary affidavit, sworn on 10.11.2006, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have been filed. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 6 has also been filed. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. I have heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and perused the record. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions : (1) The cancellation of the license of the petitioner in respect of the fair price shop in question has been done mala-fide. (2) The inspection of the fair price shop in question on 4.4.2006 was made without there being any complaint regarding the alleged irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities by the petitioner. (3) On 6.4.2006 the quantities of the food-grains and sugar lifted from the fair price shop in question and handed-over to Satya Bhan dealer as mentioned in the document filed as Annexure-SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit, showed that there was no deficiency in the stock in the fair price shop in question. (4) The distribution of food-grains and sugar had been made prior to the festival of Holi but the same could not be entered in the stock register. Affidavits of card-holders were filed on behalf of the petitioner in this regard which showed that the distribution was done by the petitioner properly. (5) No statement of any card-holder was recorded by the concerned officers as to whether there was any irregularity in the distribution of the essential commodities by the petitioner. (6) Certificate dated 27.3.2006, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition, showed that the distribution had been done by the petitioner in the month of March 2006 properly. 11. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. (6) Certificate dated 27.3.2006, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition, showed that the distribution had been done by the petitioner in the month of March 2006 properly. 11. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that the authorities below on a detailed consideration of the relevant factors and the material on record have recorded categorical findings of fact on the basis of which the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, and no interference is called for with the said findings by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Taking-up the First Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that in Paragraph-15 of the Writ Petition, certain general and vague allegations of malafide have been made against the respondent No. 4. Material particulars and details to establish any malafide on the part of the respondent No. 4 have not been given by the petitioner in Paragraph-15 of the Writ Petition. In my opinion, it is not possible to conclude any malafide on the part of the respondent No. 4, on the basis of general and vague allegations made in Paragraph-15 of the Writ Petition. Moreover, the respondent No. 4 has not been impleaded by name in the Writ Petition, and in view of this also, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the plea of malafide against the respondent No. 4. The First Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. Coming to the Second Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that inspection of the fair price shop in question on 4.4.2006 was made without there being any complaint against the petitioner, it is relevant to note that in the Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. Coming to the Second Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that inspection of the fair price shop in question on 4.4.2006 was made without there being any complaint against the petitioner, it is relevant to note that in the Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5), it is inter alia, stated as under : "Jh deys’k dqekj mfpr nj fodzsrk fuoklh xzke HkViqjk] xzke iapk;r fc;kjh&HkViqjk ds }kjk vko’;d oLrqvksa ds forj.k esa dh tk jgh vfu;ferrkvksa ds lEcU/k esa izkIr f’kdk;rhi= ds vk/kkj ij vkt fnukad 4&4&2006 dks izkr% 9&40 cts {ks=h; iwfrZfujh{kd ds lkFk Jh deys’k dqekj mfprnj fodszrk xzke HkViqjk dh nqdku dk fujh{k.k fd;kA"” 12. The above-quoted extract clearly shows that the inspection was done on the basis of complaint received in regard to the irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities by the petitioner. 13. Similar assertion has been made in the Report dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5) submitted by the Regional Supply Inspector, Jaswant Nagar, wherein he states as under : "f’kdk;rh i= ds vk/kkj ij vkt fnukWd 04&04&2006 dks izkr% 9&40 cts Jh deys’k dqekj mfprnj fodszrk fuoklh xzke HkViqjk] xzke iapk;r fc;kjh HkViqjk dh nqdku dk vkdfLed fujh{k.k egksn; ds lkFk fd;k x;k A fujh{k.k ds le; nqdku cUn ik;h x;hA" 14. In view of the above, it is evident that inspection in respect of the fair price shop in question on 4.4.2006 was made on the basis of complaint received regarding the alleged irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities by the petitioner. 15. Even otherwise, in my opinion, it is not necessary that there must be a complaint prior to making of an inspection of a fair price shop. Paragraph 21 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 provides as follows : “21. Monitoring in accordance with the order issued by the State Government.—(1) A Food Officer shall ensure proper monitoring of fair price shops and prescribe model sale register, stocks register and ration card register in accordance with the order issued by the State Government. Paragraph 21 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 provides as follows : “21. Monitoring in accordance with the order issued by the State Government.—(1) A Food Officer shall ensure proper monitoring of fair price shops and prescribe model sale register, stocks register and ration card register in accordance with the order issued by the State Government. (2) Food Officer shall ensure regular inspection of fair price shop in his area not less than once in a month in urban area and not less than once in a month in rural area by the supply inspector. The State Government may issue order specifying the inspection schedule, list of checkpoints and authority responsible for ensuring compliance of the said order. (3) (i) Competent authority shall ensure constitution of Vigilance Committees, Administrative Committee (Gram Sabha Level) at fair price shop which shall monitor the functioning of the fair price shop. (ii) Meeting of such Committees shall be held on regular basis and in a manner as directed by the State Government. (4) Competent Authority shall ensure a periodic system of reporting and the complete information in this regard shall be sent in the prescribed form as follows : (i) By fair price shops to the District Authorities by the 7th of the month following the month for which allocation is made in Form A. (ii) By the District Authorities to State Government by the 15th of the month following the month for which allocation is made in Form B. (5) Competent authority shall ensure that Scheduled Commodities are made available to agents in accordance with the roster prescribed by the State Government in this regard. (6) Monthly allocation of food grains, sugar, kerosene and other scheduled commodities shall be supplied to the agent only and that only on receipt of a certificate, issued by the concerning Vigilance Committee, Administrative Committee duly countersigned by the supply or Senior Supply Inspector or Village Development Officer of the area clearly mentioning that prior month’s allocations have been distributed by the agent in accordance with the rules. (7) Competent authority shall ensure delivery of one copy of allocation order made to fair price shop simultaneously to Gram Panchayat or Nagar Palika or Nagar Nigam as the case may be and Vigilance Committees or any other body nominated for monitoring the functioning of the fair price shops by the State Government. (7) Competent authority shall ensure delivery of one copy of allocation order made to fair price shop simultaneously to Gram Panchayat or Nagar Palika or Nagar Nigam as the case may be and Vigilance Committees or any other body nominated for monitoring the functioning of the fair price shops by the State Government. (8) Competent authority and Food Officer shall check the diversion, substitution or adulteration of scheduled commodities.” 16. Thus the above-quoted Paragraph 21 makes it incumbent on the concerned authorities to ensure proper monitoring of fair price shop and to ensure regular inspection of fair price shop. Therefore, existence of a complaint is not a pre-condition for making inspection of a fair price shop. The Second Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted. As regards the Third Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to refer to Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The document annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the said supplementary affidavit, inter alia, shows the quantities of food-grains and sugar lifted from the fair price shop in question and handed-over to Satya Bhan dealer. The said document shows that 50 bags of rice and 45 bags of wheat were thus handed-over to the said dealer Satya Bhan on 6.4.2006, and further, 9 bags of sugar were handed-over to the said Satya Bhan dealer. 17. In Paragraph-6 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in reply to the said supplementary affidavit, it is stated as under : “6. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit as stated are misconceived and baseless hence denied. In reply to the facts, it has already been stated in the enquiry report as well as in the cancellation order that the petitioner was supplied with 197 packets of Wheat & Rice and 12 packets and 15 Kg. sugar (615 Kg.) for two consecutive months of March & April but instead of the total packets, only 95 packets of Wheat and Rice also 9 packets of sugar (450 Kg.) stock were found in the shop so as far as concerned there was a deficit of 102 packets of Wheat and Rice and also a deficit of 3 packets 15 Kg. of sugar (165 Kg.) that itself makes it clear that the Black marketing of essential commodities was committed by the petitioner thus, the allegation for the same was made as against the petitioner but he was unable to reply in due course of time. It is admitted that 9 packets of sugar were handed over to another fair price shop owner Satyabhan.” 18. It is evident from the document annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit that total 95 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 9 bags of sugar were available on 6.4.2006 in the fair price shop in question, and the same were handed over to the said Satya Bhan dealer. As noted earlier, the Order-cum-Notice dated 4.4.2006 also mentioned that on physical verification of food-grains and sugar in the fair price shop in question at the time of inspection, total 95 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 9 bags of sugar were found on the spot. Thus the document filed as Annexure SA-1 again establishes that while 197 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 12 bags 15 Kg. of sugar should have been available on the spot in the fair price shop in question at the time of inspection on 4.4.2006, only 95 bags of food-grains and 9 bags of sugar were found on the spot. Thus total 102 bags of food-grains (wheat and rice) and 3 bags 15 Kg. of sugar were found to be deficient in the stock of the petitioner in the fair price shop in question. Thus the document annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit does not show that there was no deficiency in the stock in the fair price shop in question. The Third Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted. 19. Coming to the Fourth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the distribution of food-grains and sugar had been made prior to the festival of Holi but the same could not be entered in the stock-register, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Affidavits of the card-holders, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. A perusal of the said Affidavits shows that it has been averred in the said Affidavits that the distribution of food-grains, sugar and kerosene oil was done by the petitioner every month at the prescribed rates. The said Affidavits, however, do not substantiate the plea of the petitioner that the distribution of food-grains and sugar had been made prior to the festival of Holi but the same could not be entered in the stock register. The Fourth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted. 20. As regards the Fifth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that no statement of any card-holder was recorded by the concerned officers as to whether there was any irregularity in the distribution of the essential commodities by the petitioner, it is noteworthy that having regard to the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner and the reply submitted by the petitioner in regard to the said charges, it was not necessary to record the statement of any card-holder. The charges against the petitioner in essence pertained to various deficiencies in the fair price shop in question, such as, regarding the notice-board, stock and rate board, the weighing balance and weights and a litre-measure for measuring kerosene oil, etc., the distribution of essential commodities without ration-cards, and the deficiency in the stock of food-grains and sugar in the fair price shop in question. In view of the said charges levelled against the petitioner and in view of the reply given by the petitioner in regard to the said charges, I am of the opinion that there was no necessity to record the statement of any card-holder by the concerned officers. The Fifth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted. Let us now come to the Sixth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that Certificate dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) showed that the distribution had been done by the petitioner in the month of March 2006 properly. The Fifth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted. Let us now come to the Sixth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that Certificate dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) showed that the distribution had been done by the petitioner in the month of March 2006 properly. The contents of the alleged Certificate dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) are as under : izek.k&i= dk;kZy;&mi ftyk vf/kdkjh] tloUruxj dzekad 219 fnukad 27-3-2006 uke nqdkunkj Jh deys’k dqekj m0 n0 fodzsrk xzke@uxj fc;kjh HkViqjk Cykd tloUruxj bVkok us ekg ekpZ 2006 dk fcØh izek.k i= dk;kZy; esa tek dj fn;k gS A vr% ekg vizSy 2006 dk rsy@phuh fuxZe dj nsa A iwfrZ fujh{kd rglhy] tloUruxj 21. Thus the alleged Certificate quoted above certifies that the petitioner had deposited sales certificate in regard to the month of March 2006, and therefore, the quota for kerosene oil/sugar for the month of April 2006 be released in favour of the petitioner. Clause (6) of Paragraph 21 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 provides that monthly allocation of food-grains, sugar, kerosene and other scheduled commodities shall be supplied to the agent only and that only on receipt of a certificate, issued by the concerning Vigilance Committee, Administrative Committee duly countersigned by the supply or Senior Supply Inspector or Village Development Officer of the area clearly mentioning that prior month’s allocations have been distributed by the agent in accordance with the rules. The alleged Certificate, annexed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition, nowhere mentions that prior month’s allocations have been distributed by the agent in accordance with the rules. Thus the alleged Certificate does not fulfil the requirements of Clause (6) of Paragraph 21 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 2004. Even otherwise, in view of the deficiencies found at the time of inspection on 4.4.2006 including the deficiency in the stock of food-grains and sugar, no reliance can be placed on the alleged Certificate dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition). The Sixth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted. In my opinion, the authorities below on a detailed consideration of the material on record have found that the charges against the petitioner were established. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the authorities below. The Sixth Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted. In my opinion, the authorities below on a detailed consideration of the material on record have found that the charges against the petitioner were established. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the authorities below. No interference is, therefore, called for with the said findings. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. ————