has not ascertained the stock by physical measurement. In this connection, it has to be noted that on suspension of licence the stock was transferred to another wholesale dealer who reported that there is an excess of 237 quintals of the stock transferred to him instead of shortages as noticed at the time of inspection. If that is the position, the allegation that there is deficiency of 241 quintals of rice cannot be taken as correct and the shortage can only be of 4.89 quintals. According to the appellant petitioner, there is no deficiency of stock even to the extent of the aforesaid 4.89 quintals. Admittedly, the Controller has not physically weighed the entire stock in which case, we are of the view that the appellant petitioner cannot be made responsible for the irregularities noted against him. The District Collector having noted the aforesaid irregularities in verification of stock was not correct in issuing Ext. P2 on the ground that at the time of inspection, the dealer has not registered her protest. The fact that the appellant petitioner has not registered her protest is not sufficient to enter an adverse finding, resulting in civil consequence to the dealer. The Department in such a case should support its case by valid materials gathered at the time of inspection and is not expected to take any mileage out of the so called non registering of any protest by the appellant petitioner which is of no consequence in the face of the failure on the part of the Controller of Rationing to comply with the existing instructions laid down in the civil supplies Manual in the matter of weighment and
