CWP No. 11859 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11859 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.03.2014 Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Bakhshi, Addl.A.G. Haryana **** RITU BAHRI , J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 28.11.2007 (P-5) and order dated 19.02.2008 (P-6) passed by the respondents vide which the depot license of the petitioner vide license number 229 has been cancelled. The petitioner is running a depot vide authority No. 229. The depot was allotted to the petitioner for distribution of essential commodities on fixed price by the Government. The depot of the petitioner is situated at Ward No. 22 Ther Mohalla, Sirsa. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.2007 (P-1) for cancellation of the depot license of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.11.2007, respondent No. 2 passed an order of cancellation of the license of the petitioner (P-5). The Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11859 of 2008 (O&M) -2- petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.C. Sirsa- respondent No. 1, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2008 (P-6). The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been running this depot for the last 22 years and there is no complaint against him. The petitioner lodged the complaint against Jai Prakash and on his complaint, the action was taken against Inspector Jai Prakash and other employees of the department and as such, they were adamant to implicate the petitioner in some false case. The petitioner filed a complaint on 28.02.2007 under Section 467/461/506/511/34 IPC and the inquiry was held, which is pending in the Court of CJM, Sirsa. One complaint has been made by the petitioner against Ashok Kumar s/o Prem Chand that he is doing service on the fake certificate. The petitioner was compelled to withdraw this complaint and to enter into compromise with Jai Parkash but since the petitioner did not accept this request, therefore, he was implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is ex-parte order and the petitioner was not associated in any alleged enquiry and the alleged enquiry is going on and even despite waiting for the outcome of inquiry, the orders have been passed contrary to the provisions of natural justice. On notice, a reply has been filed by the respondents stating therein that some complaints were made by card holders against the petitioner to the D.C. Sirsa in respect of charging the excess rate, not given supply of the essential commodities to the card holders and regarding Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11859 of 2008 (O&M) -3- making the false entry in the record and on receiving the complaint, D.C. forwarded the complaint to District Food and Supplies Controller for making enquiry in this regard and enquiry was conducted by AFSO through S.I. Sukhwinder Singh who checked the depot of the petitioner twice and once he has recorded the statements of 29 card holders and second time, he has recorded the statement of 20 card holders and thereafter, he has given his report to the AFOS who has submitted his report vide letter dated 25.7.2007 to the DFSC by stating that the petitioner is not giving regular supply of the essential commodities to card holders and also made false entry in the ration cards of the card holders without giving the essential commodities to them and also made entry in his register. AFSO also checked the depot of the petitioner and checked the register and other records of the depot and found the above said irregularities and other so many irregularities and all these card holders made different complaint. After receiving the report from AFSO, the DFSC Sirsa has issued show cause notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The petitioner was given the opportunity of personal hearing but the petitioner could not give any explanation regarding the complaint made against him. Further he could not produce the record as demanded by DFSC and thus his license had been cancelled vide order dated 28.11.2007 and the petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before respondent No. 1, which was dismissed on 19.02.2008. Thus, the plea of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity of hearing is factually incorrect. He has not produced the Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11859 of 2008 (O&M) -4- requisite record before the office and he was not doing the work properly. The complaint made against Inspector Jai Prakash has no concern with the facts of the present case as some card holders had given complaint against the petitioner to the D.C Sirsa and on his recommendation enquiry was held. There are no allegations of malafide against the D.C. Sirsa. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had been running the depot for the last 22 years and it is not the case of the respondents that there was any complaint against him prior to the complaint received by the D.C. Sirsa, therefore, the order cancelling his license seems very harsh as it was only on one occasion the complaint was made against the petitioner. In view of the above, orders dated 28.11.2007 (P-5) and order dated 19.02.2008 (P-6) are set aside. The petition is allowed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 27.03.2014 G Arora Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document