AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.A. Mehta, J.—By a show cause notice dated 29-5-1992 (annexure A), the petitioner was called upon to explain the misconduct and irregularities and to show cause against the cancellation of the authorisation of fair price shop. The petitioner filed a detailed reply and the Collector, by his order dated 1-12-1992, cancelled the petitioner''s authorisation for the fair price shop and forfeited the deposit of Rs.500/-. Revision against the same came to be dismissed.
Apart from the fact that the authorisation is a matter of contract and for breach of contract, the remedy is by way of a suit for damages and the petition is not maintainable; there is otherwise also, no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.
The first contention of the petitioner is that no particulars are given in the show cause notice. However, the petitioner has not produced the tabular statement furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice and this material has been suppressed. At the hearing, this statement running into several pages is shown to the Court in which all the particulars are given. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention.
The allegation of mala fide is absolutely vague and they seem to have been made for the sake of making and there is no substance.
The ground that on 12-12-1991, there was no inspection in fact is based merely on the argument that there is no signature in the visit book. That cannot lead to the conclusion that there was no inspection or raid. The voluminous evidence collected clearly show that there had been a visit.
It is contended that the Inspector who is said to have conducted the visit is not offered for cross examination. Apart from the fact that the Inspector''s report is not relied, there was no demand for examination or cross examination of the Inspector. The material collected by the Inspector has been disclosed to the petitioner along with the show cause notice and he has been given adequate opportunity of hearing. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society and the Society has committed no misconduct and if any employee of the society has committed any misconduct, the authorisation of the society cannot be cancelled. It is the obligation of the society to see that no irregularities are committed and strictly the conditions of authoritisation are complied with. If the society fails to see that these irregularities are not committed, it has to take the consequences and liability for the same. The argument of the petitioner, if accepted, would mean that the authorisation or licence in favour of an artificial person can never be cancelled. The obligation is of the society to see that no irregularities are committed and the society has failed to observe this condition of authorisation.
None of these contentions has any merit. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Notice discharged.