AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is barred by limitation. The delay is of 1498 days.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge upholding the order of cancellation of licence of a fair price depot.
There were various allegations against the writ petitioner -appellant. It was stated that the writ petitioner did not display the price and stock position in front of the fair price depot; he was not present at the time of inspection of the fair price depot; he used to distribute essential commodities from his house only and not from the depot; he used to charge Rs.3.50 instead of Rs.3.00 per kg for rice and wheat in respect of BPL cardholders and the records relating to distribution of stock were not properly maintained by him.
The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, by his order dated August 27, 2005, cancelled the licence. The Commissioner, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, on October 31, 2008, confirmed the order of cancellation and dismissed the appeal.
A revisional application was filed before the Government. While the revisional application was pending, the writ petitioner -appellant challenged the order of cancellation of licence by filing a writ petition.
The Hon''ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding, inter alia, that the conduct of the writ petitioner was not trustworthy. It was held that the writ petitioner misused his licence. Against such order, this writ appeal has been filed.
The revisional application came up for consideration and the revisional authority allowed the revisional application. The order of this Court was suppressed before the revisional authority. Consequently, some of the villagers challenged the order of the revisional authority by filing writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed. The order of the Hon''ble Single Judge was affirmed in Writ Appeal Nos.185 of 2006 and 280 of 2016.
Therefore, the submission of Mr.Siddharth B. Muchandi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, that the revisional authority has taken a contrary view, cannot stand as the order has been set aside.
We do not find any merit in the writ appeal having regard to the conduct of the writ petitioner -appellant.
Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, I.A.No.II of 2014 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.