1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6545/2004 Bhagwati Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :- 08.04.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Het Ram Agarwal, for the petitioner. Mr.Zakawat Ali, Dy.G.A. for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2003 passed by the District Supply Officer ('the DSO' for short) whereby the licence granted to him was cancelled. He has also challenged the order dated 15.07.2003 passed by the Collector, Karauli whereby the learned Collector upheld the order dated 08.04.2003. Lastly, he has challenged the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the Food Commissioner whereby the learned Commissioner upheld both the orders dated 08.04.2003 and 15.07.2003. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an authorised Fair Price Shop Dealer for Gram Panchayat Kela Devi, Distt. Karauli for the last fifteen years. On a false and baseless 2 complaint, a case was made out against the petitioner and a show-cause notice was issued to him alleging technical irregularities such as non- exhibition of price list, non-maintenance of unit register, non-lifting of B.P.L. wheat for the months of June and July, 2002 in full quantity etc. On 08.04.2003, the petitioner replied to the notice in detail enclosing therewith documentary evidence, affidavits etc. denying all the allegations. But without considering the reply and documents and without going into the merits and demerits of the case, vide order dated 08.04.2003 the DSO, Karauli, respondent No.3, cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner. Against the order dated 08.04.2003, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Collector, respondent No.2, but vide order dated 15.07.2003, the same was dismissed by the Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Food Commissioner, respondent No.1, but vide order dated 12.08.2004, he upheld the orders passed by the DSO and the Collector, Kauauli. Hence, feeling aggrieved against these orders mentioned above, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3 Mr. Het Ram Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised following contentions before this Court: firstly, the petitioner was asked to sign blank pieces of paper upon which subsequently the order sheet dated 08.04.2003 has been drawn. Secondly, the order sheet dated 08.04.2003 incorrectly records the fact that the petitioner did not wish to submit any documentary evidence in order to buttress his defence. Thirdly, no time was granted to the petitioner for submitting the affidavit in his defence. Therefore, the order sheet dated 08.04.2003 is absolutely illegal. Lastly, the orders dated 15.07.2003 and 12.08.2004 have been passed in mechanically fashion. Therefore, they are unsustainable in the eyes of law. On the other hand, Mr. Zakawat Ali, the learned Deputy Government Advocate, has contended that the law presumes that an official act has been in accordance with the law. Secondly, there is no indication in the order dated 08.04.2003 that signatures of the petitioner, Bhagwati Prasad, were taken upon blank pieces of paper. Thirdly, in case the signature were taken under coercion, the petitioner should have filed a 4 complaint before the Superior authority pointing out that the DSO has compelled him to sign blank pieces of paper. However, there is no such evidence to show that the petitioner complained before the Superior authority. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner are merely an after-thought. Fourthly, since no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner, the DSO was justified in holding that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case in his defence and the allegations levelled against him stood proved. Therefore, the DSO was justified in cancelling the licence. Lastly, the orders dated 15.07.2003 and 12.08.2004 have not been passed mechanically. In fact, in both the orders, the evidence has been discussed meticulously. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported all the impugned orders. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Undoubtedly, the law presumes that a public officer has performed an act in accordance with law. Where a party claims that the procedure established by law was violated by a public 5 officer, the burden lies on the party to establish the same. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that he was forced to sign blank pieces of paper by the DSO. There is no indication in the order sheet dated 08.04.2003 that the petitioner was compelled to sign blank pieces of paper. Moreover, even after 08.04.2003 the petitioner has not filed any complaint against the DSO to the Superior authority bringing out the fact that he had signed blank pieces of paper under duress. Therefore, the defence now being created and argued before this Court is nothing but an after-thought. The order sheet dated 08.04.2003 clearly records that the petitioner had filed the reply, but did not wish to produce any further evidence to buttress the pleas taken in his reply. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statement so recorded in the order sheet. In the absence of any documentary evidence or in the absence of witnesses which could be produced by the petitioner, but were not produced by the petitioner, the DSO has correctly discussed the evidence and has rightly held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were duly proved. 6 Hence, the DSO was justified in cancelling the licence granted to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the orders dated 15.07.2003 and 12.08.2004 also clearly reveal that the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner have meticulously discussed the evidence which was placed before the DSO. Therefore, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the said orders. For the reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki