Rohtash v. State Of Haryana & ORS

VINOD KUMAR 2016.08.05 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16671 of 2015 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.16671 of 2015 Date of decision:04.08.2016 Rohtash

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sanjeev Kalan, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the District Controller, Food and Supply, Jhajjar dated 28.04.2015 and of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar dated 21.07.2015 by which his license for running the ration depot has been cancelled.

In short, a complaint was received by the District Controller, Food and Supply, Jhajjar through the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar, filed by respondent No.4 and other residents of village Chhochi, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar, against the petitioner. That complaint was inquired into by the Assistant Food and Supply Officer, Jhajjar, in which the statements of the complainant and other villagers were recorded and it was reported that the petitioner was negligent in supplying the ration allotted to him for distribution to the eligible card holders and misappropriated the ration by showing bogus entries in the register. After the report was received, a show

VINOD KUMAR 2016.08.05 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16671 of 2015 [ 2 ] ***** cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after hearing him, order of cancellation of ration depot was passed on 28.04.2015. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar, which was also dismissed by observing that the petitioner did not supply Kerosene oil to the eligible card holders and has been using abusive language. It was also observed that there were no signatures of the card holders in the register from which it transpired that he had made false entries in the sale register for misappropriation of ration/oil/sugar allotted to him.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some of the card holders have supported his case but it is not denied that some card holders are against him as well.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that upon an inquiry and after affording opportunity of hearing much-less complying with the provisions of natural justice, both the authorities have found the petitioner negligent in running the ration depot and has, thus, passed the order of cancellation.

In view thereof, there is no scope for interference in the finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below and hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit. August 04, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No