Judgment:
The Court : The petitioner owns and operates a flour mill at Uttar Dinajpur. The mill of the petitioner company was selected for sub-allocation of BPL (below poverty line) wheat per month for conversion into fortified atta and for packaging the same into 750 gm packets.
An agreement was apparently executed by the State of West Bengal represented by the District Controller of Food and Supplies, Uttar Dinajpur, and the petitioner No.1. The petitioner is purportedly aggrieved by suspension of supply of BPL wheat to the petitioner for the month of September 2010. According to the petitioner, allotment was suspended without any intimation. A show cause notice dated August 25, 2010 was, however, issued to the petitioner wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had been supplying hand packed atta instead of packing done by automatic or semi automatic packaging machines in utter violation of departmental guideline.
The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the show cause notice by its letter dated August 30, 2010. In its reply the petitioner pointed out that the mill owns eight (8) automatic packing machines of Allpack Industries which had been purchased as per the parameters set by the Food Department. It further contended that all the automatic packing machines were in operating condition. It was also pointed out that in addition to the eight(8) automatic packing machines, the company owned four (4) semi-automatic packing machines which had been purchased from R.M. Industrial Corporation which were also in running and operating condition.
Normally this Court does not embark upon adjudication of factual issues. However, there can be no reason why flour mills with eight(8) automatic packing machines and four (4) semi automatic packing machines should supply flour in stitched packages, incurring labour charges in the process. There can be no dispute that the mills have the automatic and semi automatic machines. The allegation is that the machines were found defunct. It is, however, difficult to understand how all machines could have become defunct when they were found to be in working condition upon inspection by the Sampler on April 9, 2010.
There was apparently no complaint whatsoever against the complaints at that stage. Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew the attention of this Court to the nothings made by the Inspector of Food which revealed that the flour mills were regularly inspected and even on 22nd June 2010, 19th July, 2010 and 5th August, 2010 no irregularities were detected. On 5th August 2010 machine stich packets were found.
It is true that the respondent authorities have in appropriate cases the power to suspend supply. However, such power being a drastic power ought to be exercised with care.
The consequences of suspension are irreversible. Having regard to the successive notes of the Inspectors of Food & Supplies which were all favorable, as also the fact that even on 25th August, 2010 indent was placed for the week commencing from August 16, 2010 till 29th August 2010 but there was no complaint from any quarter in respect of the supply effected pursuant to such indent, this Court deems it appropriate to grant an interim order restraining the respondents from withholding supply of BPL wheat to the flour mills of the petitioner. It is made clear that the respondents might, however, proceed with the investigation/enquiry initiated pursuant to the show-cause notice dated August 25, 2010. Affidavit-in-opposition to the writ application be filed within November 30, 2010.
Affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, be filed within December 7, 2010. Let the writ application be listed for hearing on the following working day.
All parties are to act on a signed photostat copy of this order on the usual undertakings.