AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Learned Single Judge has found that the petitioner''s authorization to run fair price shop was cancelled on the ground that he was not eligible, inasmuch as he was not the resident of Ward No. 22. He was residing at 21, Nain Vihar, Rampura Road, Hajyawala, Tehsil Sanganer, which falls in Ward No. 12, and that, this fact was established by a report, which was submitted to the District Collector.
It is submitted that a copy of the report was never supplied to the petitioner, which is appellant before us.
We do not find that the appellant has either, in his writ petition or in appeal, denied, or made any statement that he was actually residing in Ward No. 22. His entire case is based on the fact that a copy of the report was not given to him.
In view of want of specific denial of his place of residence, and on which he was not found to be eligible, the appellant is not entitled to any relief from this Court.
Despite our request to either establish, or to file affidavit, as to whether the appellant is actually residing in the area of Ward No. 22, learned counsel again insisted that the copy of the report must have been given to him, which violated the principles of nature justice.
The principles of natural justice are not to be observed as an empty formality. Where the basic facts, on which a person is non-suited, are not denied, an opportunity to show cause would not serve natural justice. The appellant must have defended his eligibility, to be allotted a fair price shop. When he does not deny that he was residing in Ward No. 22, and not in Ward No. 12, he is not entitled to be heard, even if there is no evidence of the notice, to be served upon him.
We do not find that the appellant is entitled to any relief from this Court, as he has not denied the basic facts, which were made grounds for cancellation of his authorization to run a fair price shop. The Special Appeal is dismissed.