IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18306 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.3.2010 Hoshiar Chand Singla ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was running a depot in village Tira, Block Majri, District Mohali, since 1987. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 22.9.2008 (Anenxure P-1) by respondent No.2 to which he duly replied on 26.9.2008 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.10.2008 (Annexure P-3) cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No.3 who vide order dated 15.6.2009 (Annexure P-4) accepted the appeal and restored the licence of the depot of the petitioner. The panchayat of village Tira filed an appeal against the order dated 15.6.2009 before CWP No. 18306 of 2009 -2- respondent No.1 who vide order dated 20.7.2009 cancelled the licence of the depot of the petitioner which was communicated to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure P-5). Hence, the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. The District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Matters, SAS Nagar, Mohali-respondent No.2 while accepting the appeal filed by the panchayat of village Tira had recorded in the order impugned herein that the petitioner during the course of enquiry had stated that the measurement was of less quantity, and he wanted to leave the depot work and at the same time he apologized his working. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid finding recorded by respondent No.1 except saying that it was malafide on the part of the Sarpanch and that the statement of the petitioner was recorded under pressure before the police authorities. There is nothing on the record to substantiate the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above said findings recorded by respondent No.2, this Court is satisfied that no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. March 15, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE