Prem Prakash Sharma vs State of U.P. and others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. The Fair Price Shop Licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he had not distributed the essential commodities in accordance with the terms of allotment and had been charging excess money and has also not been supplying the commodities in accordance with the prescribed norms. The petitioner admittedly was served with a charge-sheet to which he submitted his reply. After submission of the reply, the matter was considered by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Atrauli, who came to the conclusion that subsequent explanation given on the basis of 32 card-holders that there was no complaint '' against the petitioner''s distribution, appears to be an afterthought, and a defence set up later on to escape the penalty of cancellation.

The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal contending that the aforesaid finding is based on surmises and conjectures and that the complainants themselves had resiled back from their complaint.

The appellate authority, while considering the aforesaid issue, recorded a finding that the charge-sheet was preceded by an inquiry made by the Supply Inspector in relation to the specific complaints raised and the statements recorded corroborated the allegations made in the complaint. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer was correct as the subsequent explanation given was a mere defence set up through some of the cardholders who were won over later on.

I have perused the writ petition and I do not find any challenge raised to the said report of Supply Inspector which has been made the basis for dismissal of the appeal. In the absence of any challenge to the same or the correctness thereof having been questioned, the said findings of fact by the appellate authority cannot be re-appreciated by this Court that too even without any plea raised in that regard. In the absence of any such material, the finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the appellate authority, cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is dismissed.