M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing in liming his writ petition filed to challenge the cancellation of the authorisation of a ration depot from his name. The cancellation bad been ordered by the Food Allotment Board, Sheikhupura, on 28-2-1982, in the result of an enquiry held in regard to allegations of irregularities, gross misconduct and black-marketing on the part of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the authorisation had been first cancelled on 22-4-1981 but the order had later been withdrawn and a fresh enquiry had been made before the impugned cancellation order was passed. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Board on grounds of mala fide and denial of opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses but both were repelled by the learned Judge who noted that the second objection had not been taken in the writ petition but had been raised for the first time during the hearing of the arguments and as such the same could not be entertained.
2. After hearing learned counsel on 2a-3-1982, we summoned the record for today. An official of the Department has brought the record and, we have gone through the same with the help of counsel on both sides. The order of the Board, which is fairly detailed, shows that before the Enquiry officer, seven ration-card holders belonging to the Christian Community to which the petitioner also belongs, had made statements unanimously supporting the allegations against him. 134 other ration-card holders, also all Christians of the same Ward, had made a joint statement supporting the allegations, though 62 ration-card holders had stated that they had no complaints against him. The enquiry had been made in the presence of the petitioner and the objections raised by him at that time had also been considered by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had appeared with counsel during the hearing before the Board on 28-2-1982 and was given opportunity --to give further evidence, if he desired, in support of his, contentions but he did not furnish any other evidence and only submitted a statement. In these circumstances, we find no substance in the assertion that the enquiry proceedings were mala fide or had been held in denial of opportunity or hearing. The dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court was, therefore, fully merited. Leave to appeal is refused.