1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4481/2007 Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 2nd August, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. V.K.Sharma, for the petitioner. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 23.5.2007 passed by the Additional Food Commissioner, Department of Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs, Government of Rajasthan. In brief, facts of the case are that the District Supply Officer, Udaipur on basis of an inspection report submitted by the Inspector, Food and Supply, initiated proceedings against the petitioner for violation of conditions No.5, 11 and 17-C of the Rajasthan Food Grains and other Essential Commodities (Distribution & Regulation) Order, 1976. The District Supply Officer found that the petitioner was involved in black marketing of the controlled food articles, thus, by an order dated 18.9.2006 cancelled his licence relating to dealership of a fair price shop. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2006 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Udaipur that also came to be rejected by order dated 2 9.10.2006. The Collector, Udaipur while rejecting the appeal affirmed the finding given by the District Supply Officer that on 27.5.2006 at about 11 AM the petitioner transported 26 bags of wheat in a bus for black marketing of the same. The appellate authority also affirmed the finding that the dealer did not produce relevant record for inspection on a false pretext. A revision petition preferred by the petitioner thereafter assailing validity of the order dated 9.10.2006 also came to be rejected by the Additional Food Commissioner on 23.5.2007. The revisional authority did not find any error in the orders passed by the District Supply Officer, Udaipur and the appellate authority i.e. the Collector, Udaipur. While assailing validity of the orders aforesaid, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that no proper inquiry was conducted before cancelling the licence relating to the fair price shop. It is also contended that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority failed to appreciate that the record relating to food grains available on fair price shop could not be produced by the petitioner as a consequence of a “loot” by tribes of the area. I do not find any substance in any of the contentions so raised. The District Supply Officer 3 conducted a thorough inquiry and recorded statements of Pancha, Honilal, Shankarlal, Shankarlal son of Umaji, Lalaram etc. in presence of whom 26 bags of wheat were transported by the petitioner to sale the same at some other place. All the witnesses also said that the petitioner was not giving adequate service to them and was involved in black marketing of food grains. It is also relevant to note that for not producing relevant record the explanation given by the petitioner was that the record concerned was lost during a “loot” made by the tribes but that was found false on face by the District Supply Officer as the inspection was made on 27.5.2006 whereas the first information report relating to so called “loot” was lodged on 18.6.2006 i.e. quite later to the inspection made by the Inspector, Department of Food and Supply. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority considered all the issues involved thoroughly and then maintained the findings given by the District Supply Officer. Such finding does not warrant any interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.