Bhagwan Singh vs Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—300 litres of kerosene oil was found in the residence of one Brij Lal who allegedly was in the business of black marketing. In the raid, the said Brij Lal made a statement that the two drums containing kerosene oil in fact belonged to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has been granted a licence to run a fair price shop. On the basis of the raid made at the residence of Brij Lal, the shop of the Petitioner was sealed and, thereafter, in the presence of the Petitioner the stock of the kerosene oil was checked. The Respondents initially suspended his licence, issued a show cause notice and the reply having not been found satisfactory, cancelled the fair price licence. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was also dismissed. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has now filed the present writ petition.

Heard Shri Anirudha Joshi, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Mr. J.S. Bisht, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the Respondents.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that stock register of the Petitioner was checked in which it was found that the stock of kerosene oil in the shop of the Petitioner was correct and in accordance with the stock register and that there was no irregularities in the stock of kerosene oil. The Gram Pradhan of the village has also given his evidence indicating that the Petitioner was making the distribution of the essential items properly. Inspite of this evidence coming on record and, in the absence of any material to show that the seized kerosene oil from the residence of Brij Lal belonged to the Petitioner, the appellate authority without applying its mind mechanically rejected the appeal of the Petitioner and affirmed the order of cancellation of the fair price licence of the Petitioner.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that the order cancelling the fair price shop licence of the Petitioner as well as the appellate order is based on non-existing ground not supported by any evidence brought on record. The Court is of the opinion that there is nothing to indicate that the seized goods from Brij Lal in fact belonged to the Petitioner. Learned Brief Holder for the State placed reliance on the statement made by Brij Lal which in the opinion of the Court was made in order to save his own skin. Even otherwise, merely on the statement of one person, the Petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of the offence unless and until it is proved. In the present case, the authorities checked the stock register of the Petitioner and found that the kerosene oil in his stock tallied with the stock register. Consequently, the allegation made by Brij Lal, from whose residence the kerosene oil was seized, is not supported by any other documentary proof.

In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The fair price shop of the Petitioner is restored.