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 includi