Judgment:
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 13003/2012 dated 01/08/2012.)
1. The appellant is a Mahila Mandali, represented by its Secretary. Appellant, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learnedâSingle Judge, in Writ Petition No. 13003/2012 (GM-EC) dated 1st August 2012, has presented this writ appeal.
2. In the said writ petition, the appellant herein had sought for quashing of the order dated 31st March 2012 passed by the Commissioner for Food and civil Supplies, in Appeal No.CFS Appeal. 140/2010-11 vide Annexure A to the writ petition and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya.
3. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, holding that the allegations made against the appellant were found to be proved by the first Appellate Authority and based on such proved facts, the first Appellate Authority has taken a decision in the matter of cancelling the licence and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant, seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya.
4. Brief facts of the case are, the appellant herein was granted authorization to distribute essential commodities at Dypasandra village of Mandya Taluk under the relevant provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control Order), 1992. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are some of the ration card holders attached to the fair price depot of the appellant and some of the villagers including Respondent Nos.4 to 6 lodged complaints against the appellant's fair price depot alleging that the appellant's depot is collecting more amount of money than prescribed in respect of the essential commodities and that the bills and exact changes are not issued etc. Therefore, the complainants prayed for making alternative arrangement by giving authorization in favour of any of the 25 Societies of the concerned village. The jurisdictional Tahsildar got the inspection done and found that the allegations made against the appellant were proved and correct and he accordingly submitted a detailed report which reveals that the appellant was charging Rs. 10/- per litre of kerosene; Rs.3.25 for one kilogram of wheat instead of Rs.3/- and there were several other allegations relating to non issue of bills etc. It was also found that sugar was being charged at Rs. 14/- per kilogram. Therefore, a joint inspection was also made by the Food Sheristedar and also the Food Inspector/Tahsildar and they submitted a joint report dated 6th November 2008, wherein it was found that the appellant, not only used to charge more amount of money but also used to distribute lesser quantity of the essential commodities. On the basis of the said report, the authorization granted in favour of the appellant was suspended and the matter went to the Appellate Authority and thereafter to this Court and ultimately it came to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry. Finally, the Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 12th October 2010 concluded that, though the working of the appellant's Depot was not m accordance with law, revoked the order of suspension, however, by imposing fine of forfeiting the Security Deposit with a warning. Being aggrieved by the lesser punishment imposed on the appellant, the respondents 4 to 6 approached the Appellate Authority, i.e. the first respondent, by filing an appeal and the Appellate Authority, by its order dated 31st March 2012 allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 12th October 2010 and directed that alternative arrangement be made to distribute the essential commodities through KFCSC retail depot. Being aggrieved by the setting aside of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12th October 2010, the appellant herein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
5. When the said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the learned single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also the counsel appearing for the contesting parties and after going through the records made available, dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant, holding that the said Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Appellate Authority as the same is just and proper and subserves the interest of justice.
6. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant, reiterated the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India and others that, if the fair price depot fails to provide grain to BPL card-holders at BPL rates and in case the fair price depots engage in black-marketing or siphoning away of grains to open market etc, the licenses of such fair price depots should be cancelled and that the concerned authority should not show any laxity on the subject. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has presented this appeal seeking to set aside the said order of the learned Single Judge and to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya.
7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri M.R. Rajagopal at the outset is that, the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority are liable to be vitiated for the reason that, the Appellate Authority, without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case of the appellant, has passed the order and that the aggrieved party should question the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereas the Deputy Commissioner, after giving opportunity and after going through the relevant records has passed the order revoking the suspension order, permitting the appellant to continue to distribute the essential commodities by imposing fine of forfeiting the security deposit with a warning. The same has been done in the interest of the card holders attached to the appellant and also the appellant because the said Organization is run by women, i.e. Sri Chamundeshwari Mahila Mandali of the said village, but none of them challenged nor are aggrieved. These proceedings are initiated by rival groups in the village in order to falsely implicate the appellant and there is no truth in the report submitted by the Food Sheristedar and also the Food inspector. If opportunity had been afforded, the appellant might have made out a case and substantiated that the Appellate Authority ought not to have suspended the licence of the appellant on the basis of the alleged report submitted by the Food Sheristedar and also the Food Inspector/Tahsildar and the best course open was to have remanded the matter back to Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh.
He further submitted that, in spite of bringing this aspect to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge also failed to take cognizance of this aspect and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be confirmed.
8. As against this, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, inter alia, sought to substantiate the order passed by the Appellate Authority and also the learned Single Judge, stating that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge are in accordance with law and in consonance with the relevant material available on file and also on the basis of the report submitted by theâFood Sheristedar and the Food Inspector/Tahsildar. After joint inspection, it was further found that there are not one but several lapses on the part of the appellant in not running the fair price depot by distributing; the essential commodities as per the terms and conditions of the Authorization. It was also found and proved beyond reasonable doubts that, the appellant was charging more than the fixed price in respect of the essential commodities, viz. kerosene, wheat, etc., not issuing the bills, not returning the change, and also found lot of other lapses on the part of the appellant. Without looking into all these aspects, the Deputy Commissioner revoked the suspension order, imposing fine of forfeiting the Security Deposit with a warning. However, the Appellate Authority, rightly considered all these aspects and on the basis of the report submitted by the Food Sheristedar and Food Inspector/Tahsildar, and after being convinced that the appellant was not supplying the essential commodities as per the terms and conditions of the authorization, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and cancelled the licence granted to the appellant and directed alternative arrangement be made to distribute the essential commodities through KFCSC retail depot. The learned Single Judge also recorded a concurrent finding of fact, after relying upon the well settled laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.
9. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, after evaluation of the entire original records made available by the learned Government Pleader and after perusal of the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and also the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge, it is manifest on the face of the same that, there is no error or material irregularity in the same nor the appellant has made out a case for such interference. It is significant to note that, there are not one but several lapses on the part of the appellant in supplying the essential commodities to the cardholders and thus has violated the terms and conditions of the authorization. The appellant has been issued the authorization to run the fair price depot by distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders. Instead of supplying the essential commodities as per the terms and conditions of the authorization, the appellant has committed various irregularities as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, after conducting joint spot inspection, the Food Sheristedar and the Food inspector/Tahsildar have submitted a detailed report, stating that the appellant was charging Rs. 10/- per litre of kerosene, Rs.3.25 for one kilogram of wheat instead of Rs.3/- per kilogram and there were also certain other allegations relating to non-issue of bills, etc. and that sugar was being charged at Rs. 14/- per kilogram and that the appellant was not only used to charge more money but also used to distribute lesser quantity of the essential commodities. Thus based on the report submitted by the two Officers on the basis of the joint spot inspection, the authorization granted in favour of the appellant was suspended. The matter came up before the Appellate Authority, who confirmed the suspension of the authorization and thereafter the matter came up before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single, after hearing the counsel for both parties and after relying upon the Apex Court decision in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No, 196/2001, wherein it was observed that, if the fair price depot fails to provide grain to BPL card-holders at BPL rates; in case if the fair price depots engage in black-marketing or siphoning away of grains to open market etc., their licenses should be cancelled and that the concerned authority should not show any laxity on the subject, dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The reasoning given by the Appellate Authority and also the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 3 and 4 of his order, are just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court.
10. In the light of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it is crystal clear that the Fair Price Depots engaged in distribution of food grains to the general public must function in a just and fair manner, as the very name itself indicates and under any circumstances, black- marketing or siphoning away of grains to open market by the fair price depots should not be tolerated or allowed to continue.â
11. In the case on hand, contrary to the very purpose of the establishment of Fair Price Depots, the appellant was found charging more than the rates fixed by the competent authority and also supplying the essential commodities in lesser quantities. Thus the act of the appellant has resulted in defeating the very purpose of the Public Distribution System (Control Order), 1992 and violation of the terms and conditions of the authorization granted to the appellant to run the Fair Price Depct. Therefore, we have no hesitation in confirming the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge.
12. Another important aspect to be borne in mind is that the introduction and object of the Public Distribution System (Control Order), 1992, is to distribute essential commodities to needy persons who are Below Poverty Line and to other eligible beneficiaries, in order to bring parity and also to see that no person in the country starves on account of non availability of essential commodities. When such being the case, it is high time, the competent authorities, viz. the Food Inspectors/Tahsildars or the Food Sheristedars, at the grass root level take stern action against any pilferages and leakages 111 the process of supply of essential commodities to the needy persons and are well trained to handle the situation, without showing any misplaced sympathy or concession to the erring authorized Fair Price Depots. Because, unless and until the officers working under the Act and Rules act honestly and effectively, no object would be met and the very' purpose of the Act and rules would be defeated.
13. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for entertaining the relief sought for by the appellant in exercise of our powers to interfere in the intra-court proceedings nor we find any justification or good ground to entertain this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, within four weeks from today.