^ SINGLE BBICH INTHEHIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.roNo. ^y^| /2oii , PETITIONER Manoj Sao S/o Dhukhi Sao Aged about 45 years, Kerosene oil Hawker, Card No.250 R/o Baikund Nagar,Sharda Para Champ No.2, Bhilai, Disst- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^<\^ ^v y^ .^y<^ ^y..'-"^' ^^" ^^•'~ State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Civil supplies & Consumer Protection, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralya, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector (Food Division) Durg Distt.Durg (C.G.) The Food Controller Department of Civil supplies & Consumer Protection, Durg, Distt.Durg (C.G.) The F.N.Dwivedi Food Inspector Department of Civil supplies & Consumer Protection, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA lff':;:f li? t'L. i: ^—' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.4854 QF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Manoj Sao Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 9th day of September, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition,the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 20-6-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Collector, Durg, in Food case No.52/2008-09 and the order dated 29-6-2011 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Food Controller, Durg, which was passed in compliance of the order dated 20-6-2011. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 7-8-2008, the respondent No.4 inspected the kerosene tanker of the petitioner andfound shortage of 140 liters of kerosene out of 200 liters. The respondent No.4 also found some irregularities. Thereafter, he prepared the enquiry report and submitted the same to the Collector, Durg. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Collector issued a show cause notice dated 22-8-2008, to which the petitioner submitted his reply and denied the altegations leveled against him. However, the Collector without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order dated 20-6-2011 and cancelled the licence of the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner and without following the basic principles of natural justice. Thus, this petition. 4. On going through the record, it appears that that the Cotlector has observed that instead of selling kerosene at the rate of Rs.9.25 per liter, the petitioner used to sell the same at the rate of Rs.10/- per liter, which is contrary to the Government poticy. The Collector has also observed that during the course of enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner used to selt kerosene in black marketing. In the 3 Gowri kerosene tanker instead of 200 liters, they found only 60 liters. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner informed the officials that he has already distributed 140 liters of kerosene to the card holders, but on examining the witnesses it appears that he has not distributed any kerosene just before the inspection. Even before passing the impugned order, proper show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner, the impugned orderwas passed. Second contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses who had reported that they have not received any kerosene. It cannot be examined at this stage when the petitioner has failed to establish that whether the petitioner has requested for cross-examining the witnesses and the same was declined. Thus, it is not proved that despite request for cross-examination, the petitioner was denied opportunity to cross-examining other witnesses. The contention of the petitioner, being frivolous and baseless, is rejected. tn view of the above, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 20-6-2011 & 29-6-2011. The same are just & proper and do not warrant any interference of this Court. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage. ^————— — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge