Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2728 (ALL)

Prem Chandra v. State of U. P.

2019-12-06

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. Jigyasa Singh holding brief of Sri. Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R.M. Vishwakarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The present petition seeks to raise a challenge to the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur whereby the licence granted to the petitioners for whole sale of kerosene oil has been cancelled. The petitioners also seek to challenge the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Clause 12 of the U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 has also been rejected. 3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order of cancellation has been passed without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report pursuant to which the proceedings for cancellation were initiated. The other ground which is sought to be urged is that the measurement made by the dip rod on the basis of which the respondents have proceeded to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the verification of the stocks was not correctly done. 4. Learned Standing Counsel places reliance upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents to submit that the physical verification of the stock of the petitioner was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Badlapur in the presence of the petitioner and during the course of stock verification the kerosene oil was found in excess of the prescribed stock which was beyond the permissible limit of +3% as provided in the Government Order dated 17.06.1987 and the same is also violative of the provisions contained in the U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was found indulging other irregularities also including the fact that permission for clearance of kerosene oil was not obtained from the competent authority i.e. Sub- Divisional Officer/District Supply Officer and during the course of inspection the petitioner failed to produce the relevant records and also that the distribution register of the petitioner was not verified from the competent authority. Further it is submitted that during the course of enquiry it was found that the rate board of the petitioner was in a dilapidated condition upon which the toll free number was not mentioned. It has also been pointed out that a first information report under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has also been registered. 5. Further it is submitted that during the course of enquiry it was found that the rate board of the petitioner was in a dilapidated condition upon which the toll free number was not mentioned. It has also been pointed out that a first information report under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has also been registered. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The order of cancellation dated 07.09.2015 indicates that the petitioner had duly submitted a reply to a show cause notice issued to him and the said reply has been considered point wise whereupon a conclusion has been drawn that the petitioner had indulged in irregularities which were in violation of the relevant provisions contained under the U.P. Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1962. 7. Upon a detailed and point-wise consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner the respondent no. 2 came to the conclusion that his reply was not satisfactory and the charges against the petitioner having been proved, his licence was cancelled. The appellate order dated 17.12.2015 also indicates that the grounds urged by the petitioner in support of his appeal have been duly taken note of by the appellate authority and upon a detailed consideration of the facts of the case and the material on record a finding has been returned that the measurements made in the presence of the petitioner indicated variation in the stock which was in excess of the permissible limit of +3% and the other irregularities which have been mentioned in the show cause notice were found to be proved. The appellate authority upon a detailed consideration of the facts has affirmed the order cancelling the licence. 8. No material error or irregularity has been pointed out in the orders passed by the authorities below so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.