Full Judgment
Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was a fair price shop licence holder. By means of an order dated 2.7.2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, district Pratapgarh his licence was cancelled. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the same has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad by his order dated 9.5.2006. Challenging the said orders, this writ petition has been filed.
2. I have heard Sri A.K. Tripathi and Sri R.S. Yadav on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
3. The brief facts of this case are that on a complaint having been filed by the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Pratapgarh to the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner on 31.5.2005 alongwith Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the area, Tehsildar and the District Information Officer. Gross irregularities were found at the time of inspection. In the report of the District Magistrate, as well as that of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, besides other irregularities, it is categorically stated that the petitioner did not maintain B.P.L. Stock Register. Thereafter the petitioner was given a show cause notice. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of his reply the petitioner has in fact accepted certain irregularities relating to non-displaying the rate board, stock board etc. for which he stated that because of personal problems he could not attend to the same. Further in paragraphs 10 and 11, the petitioner has also admitted that because he was busy in the construction of a 'Mandir', the papers relating to fair price shop could not be maintained properly and that the said mistake would not be repeated in future. Considering the gross irregularities which were found in the running of the fair price shop, and his own admissions made, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and his appeal was also dismissed.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find any irregularity in the impugned orders, specially when to a large extent the petitioner has accepted the short comings, which he stated was due to his involvement in the construction of a 'Mandir' or because of his family problems. Such explanation is not worthy of acceptance.
5. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel for the, petitioner on the fact that action had been taken by the District Magistrate on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Pratapgarh, with whom the petitioner states that he is having a dispute and a criminal case is also pending. He submitted that the very fact that the District Magistrate himself went to inspect the shop in the village on the complaint of the Chairman, Zila Panchayat shows the malafide and as such, the basis of the impugned orders would be tainted and the report submitted after such inspection would be liable to be set aside. This is a very strange argument.
6. If the District Magistrate acts upon a complaint, objections are raised that why the District Magistrate promptly took action on such complaint. On the other hand, in case if the District Magistrate does not act on a complaint, we came across several writ petitions where prayers are made that the Government officials are not looking to the complaint and be directed to do so. What the District Magistrate has done in this case is what he is expected to do. As such, even if it is accepted that there was some dispute between the petitioner and the Chairman of Zila Panchayat, the same would not make any difference as long as the irregularities found in the working of the fair price shop of the petitioner are correct. As has been held above, there were serious irregularities found in the running of the fair price shop of the petitioner which were also accepted by the petitioner to a large extent in his explanation to the show cause notice.
7. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for with the orders impugned in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.