IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6939 of 1989 Date of decision: 18th November, 2009 Sita Ram … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant AG, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Under the Public Distribution System of food grain, petitioner was allotted a depot by the Department of Food and Supplies for distribution of wheat, sugar and rice. On 2nd March, 1989, a show cause notice was issued to him by District Food and Supplies Controller, Rohtak calling upon as to why the license granted for running the depot be not cancelled. Petitioner replied and stated that no details have been given regarding the irregularities committed by him regarding distribution of wheat to the ration-card holders. Subsequently, on 17th March, 1989, District Food and Supplies Controller, Rohtak cancelled the depot of the petitioner. A perusal of Annexure P-5 shows that the order passed is cryptic. No details have been given and the same is also devoid of any reason. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal. Before the appellate authority, petitioner raised an argument that his depot has been canceled on the basis of inquiry, in which he was not associated and no Civil Writ Petition No. 6939 of 1989 opportunity was granted to him to explain his conduct. The appellate authority, while rejecting the appeal, observed as under: “4. I have also heard the A.D.A. for the respondent and have also carefully examined the record of the case. I have come to the conclusion that the alleged distribution of wheat by the appellant was found only 26% correct and there is no justification for taking a lenient view on the plea put by the appellant before me and as such I dismiss the appeal.” I have heard counsel for the parties. This Court is of the view that petitioner ought to have been given details regarding the various acts of omission and commission on his part, which warranted cancellation of the license of running a depot. The impugned order cancelling the depot and the order passed by the appellate authority have not dealt with the arguments raised by the petitioner and have not stated reasons, which can be held to be valid. Hence, the impugned orders (Annexure P-5 and P-6) are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Food and Supplies Controller, Rohtak to issue a detailed show cause notice and pass a well reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. With these observations, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 18, 2009 rps 2