Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 5604 of 1981, decided. on 30th November, 1981,
‑‑‑ Art. 199 read with Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967 cancellation of authorization of depot‑holder‑ Allegations obtained in show‑cause notice proved on record Explanations given by petitioners given serious thought by concerned authorities‑No case, held, made out for exercise of constitutional jurisdic tion, in circumstances.
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 30th November, 1981.
The petitioner's authorisation for running a depot was cancelled by the District Food Controller, Sheikhupura vide order dated 15th December, 1980 after issuing a proper show‑cause notice. This order was maintained in appeal by the Deputy Director Food and in revision by the Secretary, Food. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks reversal of these orders on the ground that the petitioner was not associated with the spot inquiry held on 7th M ay, 1980 when the record from his depot was taken into possession and on the basis of this record the allegations as contained in the show‑cause notice were levelled. It is, however, conced ed that the show‑cause notice was issued which was duly replied by the petitioner and the petitioner was granted hearing before passing the cancellation order. The petitioner also was heard by the Appellate as well as the revisional Authorities. In these circumstances it cannot be pleaded that adequate hearing was not provided to the petitioner.
2. It was next contended that the allegations contained in the show‑cause notice were not proved on record and that the explanation given by the petitioner was not given serious thought by the concerned Authorities. A perusal of the impugned order would show that every officer considered the explanation, given by the petitioner, but the conclusions arrived at by these Authorities went against the petitioner. The view taken by these Authorities is neither perverse nor arbitrary.
3. 1 cannot substitute my opinion for the view taken by the relevant Authorities in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. In this view of matter, no case is made out for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
M. Y. M. Petition dismissed,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer