The court affirmed limited interference with statutory authority's orders absent procedural irregularities.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P1 and P2.

2. Petitioner was the licensee of ARD-280 of Thalappilly.

While so, an inspection was conducted in the ARD and certain irregularities were found in the stock. Thereupon the licence was suspended and thereafter the licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled with a further direction that the entire security deposit of the petitioner and the cost of the food grains found to be in shortage shall be recovered. An appeal was preferred before the District Collector, which ended up in Ext.P1 order of dismissal. The appeal filed against Ext.P1 order was also dismissed by the Government as per Ext.P2. Thereafter, Ext.P3 proceedings were initiated for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that she was not present at the shop when the inspection was conducted and the inexperienced salesman has signed the mahazar without knowing about the implications of the same.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5^th respondent, wherein it is stated that a surprise inspection was conducted on 25.10.2012 in ARD-280 of Thalappilly Taluk and major irregularities including huge shortage in stock were found and that an experienced workman was present there at the time of inspection and his statement was recorded and shortage in physical stock of commodities were found as follows:

“BPL CMR - 1609.470 Kg BPL Raw Rice - 339.200 Kg BPL Wheat - 433 Kg APL SS Wheat - 200 Kg APL Wheat - 115 Kg APL Boiled Rice - 61 Kg Sugar - 1743 Kg”

Though appeals were preferred before the authorities, they ended up in dismissal.

4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

Admittedly, the appeals preferred by the petitioner were considered and dismissed by the appellate authorities finding that there are major irregularities including huge shortage of stocks. Since valid reasons have been stated for rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioner. It is settled law that there is limited scope of interference in the orders passed by the statutory authorities until and unless it is proved that there is procedural irregularities or there is any violation of principles of natural justice. I find no reason to interfere with Exts.P1 and P2. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, an amount of Rs.75,000/- has already been deposited by the petitioner towards Ext.P3 demand. Petitioner seeks a breathing time to pay the balance amount. Two months time is granted for making payment of the balance amount demanded in Ext.P3.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-